PC-NRLF 


m  13-ti 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 


Class 


WAS 

•N 


EXCHANGE 


RETRACTATIO 


Ambrosian  and  Palatine  Recensions 
of  Plautus 


A  STUDY  OF  THE   PERSA,   POENULUS,   PSEUDOLUS,   STICHUS 
AND  TRINUMMUS 


H  dissertation 

PRESENTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF   BRYN   MAWR   COLLEGE  IN   PARTIAL 

FULFILMENT   OF    THE   REQUIREMENTS   FOR   THE   DEGREE 

OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 


CORNELIA  CATLIN  COULTER 


UN: 


BALTIMORE 

J.    H.    FURST    COMPANY 
1911 


RETRACTATIO 


THE 


Ambrosian  and  Palatine  Recensions 
of  Plautus 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  PERSA,   POENULUS,   PSEUDOLUS,    STICHUS 
AND  TRINUMMUS 


H  dissertation 

PRESENTED   TO   THE   FACULTY   OF  BRYN   MAWR  COLLEGE   IN   PARTIAL 

FULFILMENT   OF    THE  REQUIREMENTS   FOR   THE  DEGREE 

OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

CORNELIA  CATLIN  COULTER 


BALTIMORE 

J.    H.    FURST    COMPANY 
1911 


ill 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION. 

1)  The  Sources  of  the  Inconsistencies  and  Contradictions  in  the  Text 

of  Plautus. 

a)  Freedom  in  the  Handling  of  the  Greek  Original  .         .  1 

b)  "  Plautine  Carelessness "      ......  6 

c)  Retractatio   .........  8 

d)  Interpolate 20 

2)  The  Manuscripts  of  Plautus 23 

I.   PERSA 27 

II.   POENULUS '42 

III.  PSEUDOLUS .  67 

IV.  STICHTJS 83 

V.   TRINUMMUS 97 

CONCLUSION 109 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  115 


236763 


INTRODUCTION 


The  twenty-one  plays  of  Plautus,  in  the  form  in  which 
they  have  come  down  to  us,  present  contradictions  and 
inconsistencies  which  must  impress  even  an  uncritical 
reader,  and  which  demand  explanation  at  the  hands  of 
the  Plautine  scholar.  For  some  defects  we  must  hold 
Plautus  himself  directly  responsible.  We  know  that  he 
wrote  in  an  age  of  rude  technique,  and  that  he  allowed 
himself  great  liberty  in  adapting  Greek  comedies  for  the 
Roman  stage.  Terence  (Adel.  Prol.  6-10)  says  that 
Plautus,  in  presenting  his  Commorientes,  a  version  of  the 
^vvaTToOvrjcricovTes  of  Diphilus,  left  out  a  whole  scene 
(eum  Plautus  locum  reliquit  integrum),  and  the  prologue 
of  the  Casino,  (1.  65)  warns  the  audience  that  Euthynicus 
will  not  appear  upon  the  stage  because  Plautus  noluit. 
One  of  the  greatest  living  authorities  on  Plautus  1  has 
therefore  assumed  that  at  least  two  of  the  plays  owe  their 
faulty  construction  to  Plautus  himself ;  that  it  was  he  who 
changed  the  Casina  from  a  finished  comedy  to  a  farce, 
and  made  the  Stichus  end  in  an  uproarious  song  and 
dance. 

Terence  also  tells  us  that  Plautus  combined  the  plots 
of  two  or  more  Greek  comedies  into  one  play.  For  this 
blending  of  originals  (technically  called  contaminatio, 
from  the  Terentian  verb  contaminare),  Terence  frequently 
justifies  himself.  In  one  such  defense  (Heaut.  Prol. 

*F.  Leo,  Plautinische  Forschungen,  Berlin,  1895,  pp.  150  ff.  Of. 
Leo,  Plautinische  Cantica,  pp.  105  ff.,  in  Abhandl.  Gott.  Ges.  1896- 
1897;  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  pp.  375  ff. 

1 


«  RETBACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

20-21)  he  says  that  he  has  good  models  for  this  practice 
(bonorum  exemplo),  and 'in  another  (And.  Prol.  18-19) 
he  mentions  Naevium  Plautum  Ennium  ....  quos  hie 
nosier  auctores  Jiabet.  Plautus  himself  does  not  hint  at 
the  existence  of  contaminatio  in  his  plays ;  the  extant  pro- 
logues either  omit  the  name  of  the  Greek  original  alto- 
gether (e.  g.,  Ampliitruo,  Captivi),  or  they  give  only  one 
(e.  g.,  the  "E/iTro/oo?  of  Philemon  for  the  M creator,  the 
KapxrjSdvios  for  the  Poenulus). 

But  a  study  of  the  plays  reveals  more  than  Plautus 
himself  disclosed.  When  we  find  in  a  comedy  of  Plautus 
two  lines  of  action,  the  one  completed  before  the  other 
begins,  and  the  second  not  a  necessary  outcome  of  the 
first;  when,  moreover,  we  find  the  two  actions  contra- 
dicting each  other  in  detail,  we  can  assume  that  the 
comedy  is  a  combination  of  two  Greek  plays.  As  an 
example  of  such  construction,  we  may  take  the  Miles 
Gloriosus. 

The  Greek  name  of  the  play  is  given  by  Plautus  (1.  86) 
as  the  'AXaJow,  but  its  structure  precludes  the  idea  of 
a  single  original.  The  story,  briefly  told,  runs  as  follows : 
The  braggart  soldier  for  whom  the  play  is  named  has 
obtained  possession  of  Philocomasium,  the  sweetheart  of 
the  young  Athenian  Pleusicles,  and  has  carried  her  off 
to  his  house  in  Ephesus.  But  Pleusicles  follows  them 
to  Ephesus,  takes  up  his  quarters  in  the  house  next  door, 
and,  with  the  help  of  friends,  cuts  a  hole  in  the  dividing 
wall.  Through  this  hole  Philocomasium  can  pass  to  join 
her  lover  without  arousing  suspicion  in  the  soldier's 
household.  It  happens,  however,  that  her  custodian  Scele- 
drus  climbs  to  the  roof  .one  day  and  sees  her  in  the 
embrace  of  Pleusicles.  To  hoodwink  Sceledrus,  a  story 
is  forthwith  concocted  by  the  conspirators,  that  the  twin- 


INTRODUCTION  3 

sister  of  Philocomasium,  who  is  her  exact  counterpart, 
has  come  to  Ephesus  with  her  lover,  and  is  staying  in 
the  adjoining  house.  Sceledrus  hears  the  story,  sees  the 
supposed  sister  come  out  of  the  other  house  at  the  very 
moment  when  he  is  sure  that  Philocomasium  is  safe  inside 
the  house  of  the  miles,  and  is  so  terrified  at  the  possible 
consequences  of  his  spying  that  he  decides  to  run  away. 
This  ends  the  second  act.  The  third  act  introduces  a 
new  plot  by  Pleusicles  and  his  allies,  which  is  carried  out 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth.  They  know  how  vain  the  soldier 
is  of  his  fascination  for  women.  They  therefore  send 
him  a  message  purporting  to  come  from  his  neighbor's 
wife,  who  is  dying  for  love  of  him.  The  soldier  is  flat- 
tered by  the  story  and  resolves  to  get  rid  of  Philoco- 
masium in  order  to  be  free  for  this  new  love.  So  he 
sends  the  apparently  reluctant  girl  back  to  Athens,  and 
attempts  to  visit  his  new  mistress — with  disastrous  results. 
The  story  clearly  introduces  two  plots,  both  concerned 
with  the  freeing  of  Philocomasium — the  trick  of  the  secret 
passage  and  the  fictitious  twin-sister,  and  the  trick  that 
depends  upon  the  vanity  of  the  soldier.  The  first  occu- 
pies Act  II.,  the  second  Acts  IV.  and  V.  The  con- 
nection between  the  two  is  so  slight  that  they  might 
easily  come  from  two  different  Greek  plays.  Then  too, 
the  play  shows  confusion  and  contradiction  just  at  the 
point  where  these  two  stories  join.  In  11.  582-583 
Sceledrus  announces  his  intention  of  running  away;  but 
in  11.  816-817,  he  is  summoned  out  of  the  house,  and 
his  assistant  Lucrio  reports  that  he  has  drunk  himself  to 
sleep  in  the  cellar.  This  scene  (III.,  2)  repeats  the  situa- 
tion at  the  end  of  Act  II. ;  for  Lucrio,  like  Sceledrus,  cries 
out  that  his  master  will  punish  him  and  that  he  is  going 
to  get  out  of  the  way;  and  there  is  in  the  repetition  no 


4  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

increase  of  comic  effect.  We  notice,  too,  a  difficulty 
about  the  plan  of  the  three  conspirators.  In  11.  592  ff., 
the  session  which  has  been  going  on  inside  the  house  is 
to  be  continued;  in  11.  596  ff.,  the  three  meet  outside  the 
house,  apparently  to  consider  plans;  11.  612  ff.  (with 
which  11.  738-739,  749  agree)  would  lead  one  to  believe 
that  all  the  arrangements  had  been  completed  inside; 
but  at  1.  765  active  plotting  begins  again,  and  an  entirely 
new  scheme  is  evolved.  Then  at  11.  805  ff.  comes  the 
surprising  command  to  Pleusicles  not  to  call  Philoco- 
masium  by  name  in  the  presence  of  the  miles,  but  to 
address  her  as  Dicea — a  command  which  has  no  con- 
nection with  any  previous  discussion,  and  no  effect  upon 
the  later  action  of  the  play. 

Therefore  Leo  2  seems  justified  in  his  conclusion  that 
the  Miles  Gloriosus  combines  material  from  two  Greek 
plays.  One  was  a  play  depending  upon  the  secret  passage 
and  the  story  of  the  twin-sister.  In  this,  the  slave  of  the 
miles  was  duped  and  made  off  in  terror  (Act  II.),; 
then  the  plan  of  the  three  friends  was  rehearsed,  as 
it  had  been  agreed  upon  inside  the  house  (11.  805-809)  ; 
and  the  miles  himself  was  deceived,  in  much  the  same 
way  as  his  slave  had  been  (cf.  11.  805  ff.).  In  the  other 
play,  the  'AXafow,  the  weaknesses  of  the  miles  were 
exposed  (Act  I.)  ;  a  plot  was  concocted  on  the  stage, 
to  strike  him  in  a  particularly  vulnerable  point  (11.  765- 
804)  ;  and  this  plot  was  carried  out  through  the  pretended 
wife  of  his  neighbor  and  her  slave  (Acts  IY.-V.). 

Leo's  analysis  of  the  Miles  marls  the  culmination  of 
more  than  sixty  years'  work  on  Plautus.  When  Grauert,3 
in  1833,  investigated  the  plays  of  Terence  for  traces  of 

2  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  161  ff. 

3  H.  Grauert,  Historische  u.  philologische  Analekten,  Miinster,  1833, 
pp.    116-207. 


INTBODUCTIOIT  O 

contaminatio^  he  quoted  Terence's  statements  about  Plau- 
tus, and  decided  that,  in  all  probability,  Plautus  had 
frequently  combined  plots;  but  he  thought  it  impossible 
to  push  the  question  further  without  scholia  on  Plautus 
or  a  fuller  knowledge  of  his  Greek  originals.  Ladewig,4 
in  1841,  quoted  the  passage  from  the  AdelpJioe  again, 
and  used  it  to  prove  that  the  Epidicus  was  "  contami- 
nated " ;  the  next  year  5  he  added  to  his  list  the  Bacchides, 
the  Captivi,  the  Miles,  the  Pseudolus,  the  Truculentus, 
and  (less  positively)  the  Stichus  and  the  Trinummus. 
Modern  scholars  would  disagree  with  Ladewig  on  some 
of  these  points;  they  would  probably  deny  contaminatio 
in  the  Bacchides  and  the  Captivi,  and  would  certainly 
affirm  it  in  the  Poenulus,  which  Ladewig  expressly  ex- 
cludes; but  they  are  indebted  to  him  for  first  advocating 
the  theory  and  for  using  it  to  account  for  contradictions 
and  weaknesses  in  the  plays.  The  danger  of  overem- 
phasizing this  phase  of  Plautus7  work  was  recognized 
by  Teuffel.6  He  denied  Ladewig' s  assertions  of  contami- 
natio in  certain  plays,  but  pointed  out  that  it  would  be 
easy  to  assume  it  in  the  Poenulus,  which  shows  evidence 
of  two  independent  plots. 

During  the  next  twenty-five  years,  a  number  of  disser- 
tations and  articles  on  individual  plays  were  published. 
Ribbeck,7  Ladewig,8  and  Schmidt  9  did  good  work  on  the 

4  Th.  Ladewig  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Altertumsurissenschaft,  1841,  coll. 
1079-1099. 

6  Ladewig,  Vb&r  den  Kanon  des  Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neustrelitz, 
1842,  pp.  27  ff. 

6W.  Teuffel  in  Rhein  Mus.  8  (1853),  pp.  25-41  (=  Studien  u. 
Charakteristiken,2  pp.  315-352). 

7O.  Ribbeck  in  Rhein.  Mus.  12  (1857),  pp.  594-611  (especially 
pp.  606,  607).  8  Ladewig  in  Philol.  17  (1861),  pp.  255-261. 

9F.  Schmidt  in  Fleckeisen's  Jahrb.,  Suppl-Bd.  9  (1877-1878), 
pp.  321-401. 


6  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Miles,  and  Reinhardt,10  after  arguing  correctly  that  cer- 
tain difficulties — e.  g.,  in  the  Epidicus — could  not  be 
ascribed  to  contaminatio,  added  a  valuable  discussion  of 
the  Poenulus.  Goetz  11  devoted  a  section  of  his  work 
on  "  dittographies  "  to  a  review  of  Ladewig's  principles 
and  a  statement  of  his  own  position.  He  thought  that 
other  reasons  than  contaminatio  could  be  found  for  the 
smaller  inconsistencies  to  which  Ladewig  objected,  and 
he  was  on  the  whole  inclined  to  find  other  reasons  even 
where  the  difficulties  were  greater — for  instance,  in  the 
Poenulus.  Langen,12  in  his  Plautinische  Studien,  also 
took  up  the  question  of  contaminatio,  arguing  against 
its  presence  in  the  Epidicus,  and  supporting  by  detailed 
analyses  the  theory  that  it  existed  in  the  Miles  and  the 
Poenulus.  The  last  two  plays  were  taken  as  certain 
examples  of  contaminatio  by  Leo,13  in  the  third  chapter 
of  his  Plautinische  Forschungen,  and  received  such  mas- 
terly treatment  there  that  further  discussion  of  them  is 
almost  superfluous.  Leo  himself  suggested  14  that  further 
investigation  might  add  other  plays  to  the  list  of  the 
"certainly  contaminated,"  and  this  prophecy  will  probably 
be  fulfilled — in  fact,  in  the  case  of  the  Pseudolus,  it 
has  already  been  fulfilled.15 

Quorum  aemulari  exoptat  neglegentiam,  says  Terence 
(And.  20),  speaking  of  contaminatio  in  Naevius,  Plautus, 

10  L.  Reinhardt  in  Studemund's  Studien  auf  dem  Gebiete  des 
archaischen  Lateins  I.  (1873),  pp.  79-111. 

u  G.  Goetz,  Dittographien  im  Plautustexte,  in  Acta  soc.  phil. 
Lips.  6  (1876),  pp.  315-322. 

"P.  Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,  1886. 

13  F.  Leo,  Plautinische  Forschungen,  Berlin,  1895. 

"Leo,  Plaut.  Forsch.,  p.  153,  n.  2. 

M  J.  Bierma,  Quaestiones  de  Plautina  Pseudolo,  Groningen,  1897; 
Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1903,  pp.  347-354. 


INTRODUCTION  7 

and  Ennius ;  and  "  Plautine  carelessness,"  in  a  broader 
sense,  has  become  proverbial.  The  most  detailed  investi- 
gation of  the  subject  has  been  made  by  Langen,16  and 
it  is  to  his  work  that  one  first  turns  for  examples.  Such 
are  the  contradictions  in  the  Amphitruo,  where  it  is 
expressly  stated  that  the  scene  of  the  play  is  in  Thebes 
(Prol.  97;  cf.  11.  376,  677,  1046),  but  at  the  same  time 
frequent  references  are  made  to  "  the  harbor  "  (11.  149, 
164,  195,  etc.),  and  in  the  Epidicus,  where  the  price  of 
the  girl  is  given  as  fifty  minae  in  11.  364-368  (cf.  11.  52, 
141,  347),  but  as  thirty  minae  in  11.  703-705.  There  are 
inconsistencies  of  character,  too.  Through  the  first  four 
acts  of  the  Asinaria,  the  figure  of  Philaenium  appeals 
to  us;  in  the  closing  scene  it  can  arouse  only  disgust. 
An  equally  inconsistent  scene  occurs  at  the  close  of  the 
Bacchides,  where  the  two  indignant  fathers,  instead  of 
rescuing  their  sons  from  the  clutches  of  the  meretrices, 
themselves  ogle  these  corrupters  of  youth,  and  end  by 
going  into  the  house  to  join  the  merry-making.  Objec- 
tion is  sometimes  made  to  the  wordiness  of  certain  scenes, 
the  succession  of  quibbles  and  poor  jokes,  especially  wThen 
one  of  the  characters  in  the  dialogue  has  announced  that 
he  is  in  a  hurry.  In  the  Asinaria,  Act.  II.,  Scene  2, 
Leonida  comes  on  the  stage,  intent  upon  finding  Libanus 
and  imparting  to  him  some  important  news.  But  when 
they  meet,  they  thrust  and  parry  for  over  thirty  lines 
(11.  297-331)  before  Leonida  announces  his  business. 
And  Thesprio,  who  is  in  such  haste  that  he  can  not 
even  look  back  to  see  who  is  pulling  his  cloak,  nevertheless 
has  time  for  a  hundred  lines  of  repartee  and  gossip. 
(Epid.  I.,  1.)  Such  flaws  as  these  would  not  have  es- 

16  P.  Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,  1886. 


8  BETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

caped  the  notice  of  an  accurate  writer.  But  Plautus 
was  not  an  accurate  writer.  His  plays  were  composed 
hurriedly  for  immediate  production,  and  his  aim  was 
not  to  write  technically  perfect  drama,  but  to  furnish 
amusement  to  the  Koman  populace. 

The  aim  of  an  author  who  writes  for  the  stage  is 
necessarily  different  from  the  aim  of  one  who  writes  for 
the  reading  public,  and  the  history  of  a  piece  that  lives 
only  on  the  boards  must  differ  from  that  of  a  printed 
book.  Actors  and  stage-managers  naturally  make  excis- 
ions, additions,  and  alterations  to  suit  their  own  whims 
and  the  changing  taste  of  the  public ; 17  and  unless  there 
be  in  addition  a  recognized  standard  text,  these  changes 
are  likely  to  obscure  the  original  form  of  the  play. 
Such  a  fate  is  what  we  might  expect  for  Plautus,  if 
his  comedies  were  performed  after  his  death.  And  that 
his  plays,  like  those  of  Naevius,  Pacuvius,  and  Accius, 
were  given  at  a  later  date,  we  can  infer  from  Cicero's 
description  of  the  lifelike  way  in  which  Roscius  played 
the  part  of  Ballio  (Pro  Rose.  Com.  7,  20). 

In  particular,  we  know  of  a  definite  period  at  which 
a  special  interest  was  taken  in  the  production  of  Plautus. 
The  beginning  of  this  period  is  marked  by  the  prologue 
to  the  Casina,  11.  5-20.  The  managers  have  heard,  they 
say  to  the  audience,  studiose  expetere  vos  Plautinas  fabu- 
las,  and  so  they  have  brought  out  again  an  old  comedy 
which,  when  it  was  first  given,  won  the  victory  over  all 
competitors.  The  date  of  this  "  Plautine  Revival "  is 
fixed  by  11.  14-20.  The  second  production  of  the  Casino, 
took  place  after  the  passing  of  the  flos  poetarum  .  .  .  qui 
nunc  abierunt  Jiinc  in  communem  locum  (11.  18-19). 

"The   technical    term    applied   to   this    process    of    addition    and 
alteration  is  retractatio — a  "working-over"  of  the  plays.     Cf.  p.  13. 


INTRODUCTION  9 

This  must  point  to  a  date  after  159  B.  C.,  the  year  in 
which  Terence  died.  Practically  the  same  results  are 
reached  by  calculation  from  11,  14-15.  There  the  speaker 
says  that  the  seniores  who  were  present  would  remember 
the  first  performance  of  the  play,  but  the  iuniores  would 
not  be  familiar  with  it.  There  was  a  gap,  then,  of  about 
thirty  years,  between  the  first  production,  which  could 
not  have  been  later  than  the  death  of  Plautus,  in  184 
B.  C.,  and  the  second,  which  was  presumably  not  earlier 
than  154  B.  C. 

We  do  not  know  how  long  this  revival  lasted,  nor  how 
extensive  it  was.  But  we  should  naturally  expect  the 
managers  who  conducted  the  later  performances  to  make 
some  changes  in  the  text  to  suit  their  own  audiences. 
The  most  obvious  addition  would  be  some  mention  in 
the  prologue  of  the  Plautine  authorship  of  the  play. 
Thus  we  find  in  the  scrap  of  prologue  that  is  prefixed 
to  our  text  of  the  Pseudolus,  the  same  phrase  that  we 
noticed  in  the  Casino,  (Plautina  .  .  .  fdbula).  Possi- 
bly, too,  the  prominence  given  to  the  name  of  Plautus  in 
some  of  the  other  prologues  may  indicate  a  post-Plautine 
origin.  The  prologuist  of  the  Menaechmi  says  (1.  3) 
Apporto  vobis  Plautum — lingua,,  non  manu;  and  the  Truc- 
ulentus  begins:  Perparvam  partem  postulat  Plautus  loci 
De  vostris  magnis  atque  amoenis  moenibus. 

The  name  of  the  Casina  seems  to  have  been  changed 
at  this  time,  for  we  find  it  appearing  in  the  prologue 
(11.  31-32)  as  K\rjpov/jL€voi  .  .  .  Graece,  Latine  Sorti- 
entes.18  To  the  changes  made  in  the  same  period  may 

"It  is  not  clear  from  the  text  whether  Sortientes  was  the 
original  or  the  post-Plautine  title  of  the  play.  The  weight  of 
recent  scholarship  favors  the  former  view.  See  M.  Schanz,  Romische 
Literatuxrgeschichte3  I.,  1  (1907),  p.  78,  and  the  literature  cited 
there. 


10  RETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

be  due  the  variant  titles  for  other  plays  which  occur 
in  the  grammarians.  The  Mostellaria  is  cited  twice  by 
Festus  (p.  162M,  quoting  Most.  240,  and  p.  305,  quoting 
Most.  727-728)  as  Plautus  in  Phasmate  (Fasmate);  and 
the  Syr  .  .  .(i.  e.,  Syra,  the  name  of  the  lena?)  which 
Festus  cites  (pp.  301,  352)  may  be  only  another  name 
for  the  Cistellaria,  since  Priscian  (I.,  103)  quotes  the 
same  phrase  in  a  four-line  passage  (=  Cist.  405-408) 
from  Plautus  in  Cistellaria.19 

Even  in  the  body  of  the  plays  there  are  many  suspicious 
points  which  can  best  be  referred  to  changes  made  at 
the  time  of  the  Plautine  Revival.  It  is  ha.rd  to  reconcile 
Cicero's  exclamation  (De  Senect.  14,  50)  :  Quam  gaudebat 
bello  suo  Punico  Naevius!  quam  Truculento  Plautus! 
quam  Pseudolo!  with  our  present  text  of  the  Truculenius, 
in  which  the  title  is  inappropriate  and  the  action  motive- 
less. Therefore  Bergk's  20  theory  that  we  have  merely 
a  shortened  form  of  the  Plautine  play  seems  plausible. 
The  Curculio,  too,  is  slight  in  plot  and  (like  the  Trucu- 
lenius) is  considerably  below  the  average  of  Plautus  in 
length,  so  that  here  again  we  may  suspect  that  the  play 
has  been  abridged.21 

At  times  the  manuscripts  show  even  clearer  traces  of 
revision.  In  many  places  we  can  recognize  two  parallel 
versions  of  the  same  speech  or  bit  of  dialogue.  A  glance 
at  Bacch.  377-378,  380-381  will  show  that  they  contain 
exactly  the  same  thought,  expressed  in  almost  identical 
words : 

19  F.  Schoell,  Ed.  Mai.    (1894),  Praef.,  pp.  xin  f. 

20  Th.   Bergk,  Beitrdge  zur   lateinischen   Grammatik,  Halle,    1870, 
pp.   128  ff.     0.  Ribbeck  in  Rhein.  Mus.  37    (1882),  p.  422. 

aGoetz  in  Ada  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  p.  282;  Ed.  Mai.  (1879), 
Praef.,  p.  xxii. 


INTRODUCTION  1 1 

11.  377-378.     Quibus  patrem  et  me  teque  amicosque  omnes  adfectas 

tuos 
Ad    probrum,    damnum,    flagitium   adpellere   una    et 

perdere. 

11.  380-381.     Quibus  tuom  patrem  meque  una,  amicos,  adfinis  tuos 
Tua  infamia  fecisti  gerulifigulos  flagiti. 

Similarly,  Most.  816bc 

SI.     Vin    qui    perductet?     TH.   Apage    istum    perductorem :    non 

placet. 
Quicquid  est,  errabo  potius,  quam  perductet  quispiam, 

presents  in  shorter  form  the  sense  of  11.  843-847 : 

SI.     Eho,  istum,  puere,  circumduce  hasce  aedis  et  conclavia. 
Nam    egomet    ductarem,   nisi   mi    esset   apud   forum   negotium. 
TH.     Apage  istum  a  me  perductorem:    nil  moror  ductarier 
Quicquid  est,  errabo  potius,  quam  perductet  quispiam. 

In  both  these  passages,  only  one  of  the  two  great  families 
of  manuscripts  22  is  available,  and  all  the  manuscripts 
of  the  family  agree  in  giving  both  versions.  In  some 
cases,  however,  one  family  presents  a  secondary  version 
which  is  missing  in  the  other.  The  most  notable  example 
is  in  the  first  scene  of  the  Stichus,  where  a  canticum 
is  followed  by  a  passage  in  senarii  of  exactly  the  same 
tenor — the  latter  omitted  in  A,  but  preserved  in  P. 
There  are  other  less  striking  but  still  undoubted  cases. 
Bacch.  519abc  (omitted  in  A)  repeat  the  sense  and  some 
of  the  phrasing  of  11.  512-514: 

11.  512-514.-     Verum  quam  ilia  umquam  de  mea  pecunia 
Ramenta  fiat  plumea  propensior, 
Mendicum  malim  mendicando  vincere. 

23  A,  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest,  probably  written  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  P,  the  Palatine  family,  a  group  of  minuscule  manu- 
scripts ranging  from  the  tenth  to  the  twelfth  century  in  date. 


12 


RETEACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 


11.  519abc.       Bed  autem   quam   ilia  umquam   meis   opulentiis 
Ramenta  fiat   gravior   aut  propensior, 
Mori  ine  malim  excruciatum  inopia. 

In  Cist.  120-122,  126-129,  the  verbal  parallels  are  not 
so  close,  but  the  thought  is  nevertheless  the  same,  and 
the  second  passage  is  omitted  in  A.  It  is  possible  (though 
too  much  weight  must  not  be  laid  upon  this,  in  view  of 
the  proverbial  weakness  of  grammarians'  memories)  that 
some  of  the  disagreements  between  the  testimonia  and 
our  received  text  may  be  explained  on  the  theory  of 
parallel  versions,  especially  .as  Charisius,  in  quoting  Bacch. 
545  (Bacch.  540-551  are  omitted  in  A)  says  in  quibusdam 
non  ferunt<ur>. 

In  addition  to  these  secondary  versions,  the  manuscripts 
sometimes  present  apparent  attempts  to  shorten  scenes 
by  omission.23  People  who  had  to  stretch  their  legs  before 
a  Plautina  longa  fabula  came  on  the  boards  (Pseud.  Prol.  ) 
would  be  likely  to  welcome  some  cutting.  The  method 
of  indicating  such  omissions,  according  to  Lindsay,  was 
to  adscribe  in  the  margin,  opposite  the  beginning  of  the 
passage  in  question,  the  line  or  lines  which  were  immedi- 
ately to  follow.24  This  seems  to  be  the  purpose  of  the 
repetition  in  the  first  scene  of  the  Bacchides.25  Line  73 
appears  after  1.  64,  as  well  as  in  its  proper  place,  and 
the  verses  that  intervene  (65-72)  contain  a  series  of  puns 
and  quibbles  which  might  easily  be  spared.  Most.  553, 
55Y-559  are  repeated  after  1.  549,  as  if  to  indicate 
the  possibility  of  shortening  this  rather  wordy  passage.26 


in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  pp.  268  f.  W.  Lindsay, 
Ancient  Editions  of  Plautus,  Oxford,  1904,  p.  1,  note  a  (end). 

M  Lindsay  in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  p.  27. 

^Goetz,  Ed.  Mai.   (1886),  ad  loc. 

26  H.  Kellermann  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.  7  (1903),  p.  134.  Cf. 
Lindsay,  Ed.  (1905),  ad  loc. 


rNTKODUCTION 


13 


In  the  TrinummuSj  some  stage-manager  seems  to  have 
cut  out  11.  362-368 — pious  reflections  which  are  somewhat 
tedious  after  the  protracted  moralizing  of  the  first  part 
of  the  scene — in  order  to  come  to  the  point  in  1.  369.27 
This  line  is  inserted  in  A  after  1.  361;  and  in  P,  not 
only  1.  369,  but  1.  368  as  well,  has  slipped  into  this 
place. 

To  this  stage  revision  of  Plautus  has  been  given,  in 
recent  years,  the  technical  name  retractatio.  It  corres- 
ponds to  the  Greek  Btaa-/cemj  (which  was  Bitschl's  term 
for  it),  and  though,  like  the  word  contaminatio,  it  has 
no  support  in  classical  Latin,  it  is  so  convenient  that 
it  may  well  be  retained.  The  first  work  on  retractatio 
was  done  by  Osann,28  in  the  last  three  chapters  of  his 
Analecta  Critica.  He  summed  up  the  evidence  for  per- 
formances of  Plautus  after  his  death,  with  especial  em- 
phasis on  the  (7asin#-prologue,  and  argued  that  many 
variations  in  our  texts  must  go  back  to  these  later  pro- 
ductions. The  actors'  versions  were,  in  his  opinion, 
responsible  for  the  citation  by  grammarians  of  verses 
not  in  our  text,  or  of  different  forms  of  verses  which 
we  have,  as  well  as  for  parallels  in  the  manuscripts 
of  Plautus.  His  first  two  points  are  open  to  question, 
and  so  is  his  assumption  of  post-Plautine  subject-matter 
in  such  passages,  e.  g.,  as  Bacch.  1072-1075,  which  speaks 
of  a  triumph  as  a  common  thing,  or  Cas.  699,  which  men- 
tions a  vilicus.  But  his  principle  that  where  parallel 
versions  exist  both  should  be  preserved,  is  correct;  and 
his  opinion  agrees  in  several  cases  (e.  g.,  Bacch.  511-520; 
Pers.  442-443,  433-436)  with  the  results  of  more  recent 
scholarship,  while  in  others  (Capt.  1022,  Most.  548  ff., 

^Lindsay  in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21   (1900),  pp.  27  f. 
28  F.  Osann,  Analecta  Critica,  Berlin,  1816,  pp.  141-204. 


14  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Poen.  1042  ff.),  even  though  his  solution  may  not  be 
correct,  he  has  recognized  the  difficulty. 

The  weak  points  in  Osann' s  theories  were  patent  enough, 
and  it  was  these,  rather  than  his  real  contributions  to 
the  study  of  Plautus,  that  scholars  of  his  generation  chose 
to  consider.  Ladewig  29  pointed  out  the  danger  of  infer- 
ring from  discrepancies  in  grammarians'  citations  that 
different  versions  of  a  play  existed,  when  the  same  result 
might  have  been  brought  about  by  many  other  causes — 
lacunae  in  our  text,  carelessness  in  quoting,  or  error  in 
the  text  tradition  of  the  grammarians  themselves. 

Ritschl's  Parerga  30  contain  a  number  of  valuable  obser- 
vations on  the  period  of  the  Plautine  Revival  31  and  its 
effect  on  the  manuscript  tradition — especially  changes  of 
title,32  new  versions  of  the  prologues,33  and  the  second 
ending  of  the  Poenulus?*  But  in  reality  Ritschl  was 
rather  conservative  in  applying  his  theories  to  single 
points  in  the  text.  He  notes  various  kinds  of  addition 
and  repetition  in  the  Trinummus,  but,  even  though  he 
observes  that  1.  312  "  perbene,  si  numeros  spectas,  factus 
est  versiculus,"  he  takes  this  merely  as  proof  of  "  vetustas 
interpolationis  et  exercitatio  interpolators."  35  The  sec- 
tion De  Plauti  Bacchidibus  36  contains  a  spirited  reply 
to  Osann  on  this  one  play.  Ritschl  argues  that  the 
difficulties  of  the  play  are  caused  mainly  by  the  loss 
of  a  large  portion  at  the  beginning,  and  that  the  confusion 
in  the  text  which  leads  Osann  to  suspect  parallel  versions, 

29  Ladewig    in    Zeitschr.    f.    Altertumswiss.    1841,    coll.    1079  ff.; 
Rhein.  Mus.  3    (1845),  pp.   179-205;   520-540. 

30  F.  Ritschl,  Parerga  Plautina  et  Terentiana,  Leipzig,   1845. 
81  Pp.   89  ff.  32Pp.  157  ff.;   233  ff. 

33  Pp.   180  ff.  ^Pp.  601  ff.  os  Pp.  509  ff. 

36  Pp.  389  ff.  Of.  Ritschl  in  Rhein.  Mus.  4  (1846),  pp.  354  ff.; 
567  ff.  (=0pusc.  II.,  pp.  293-374). 


INTRODUCTION  15 

is  due  to  the  usual  carelessness  of  scribes.  It  is  possible, 
however,  to  trace  a  gradual  shifting  of  position  in  RitschFs 
editions  of  the  plays.  When  he  edited  the  Trinummus, 
he  committed  himself  no  further  than  to  say :  37  "  Ceterum 
diversarum  recensionum  tenues  quasdam  tanquam  reliqui- 
as  non  infitior  hodie  quoque  superesse,  sed  earum  ex  anti- 
quioribus  ut  puto  saeculis  repetendarum,  partim  autem  sua 
sponte  natarum,  partim  critica  opera  grammaticorum  par- 
atarum  " ;  and  the  note  on  Bacch.  377,  378  (Ed.  1849)  is 
equally  cautious :  38  "  Non  possunt  ab  eodem  posit  a  esse 
qui  versus  380,  381  scriberet:  quamquam  iam  a  JSTonio 
lecti,  qui  priorem  affert."  Kitschl  recognized  traces  of 
Siao-fcevrj  in  the  Stichus**  especially  in  the  first  scene, 
and  in  the  names  of  the  sisters,  which  appear  in  different 
forms  in  the  two  families  of  manuscripts ;  he  thought  that 
Pers.  IV.,  9  must  have  suffered  shortening ;  40  and  finally, 
in  his  preface  to  the  M creator,41  he  not  only  distinguished 
between  Sia&Kevri  and  the  dittography  of  the  scribes,  but 
assumed  that  the  prologue,  either  as  a  whole  or  in  part, 
and  three  certain  cases  of  "  parallels,"  dated  from  the 
Plautine  Revival  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century 
A.  U.  C. 

Bergk,  in  his  reviews  of  Hitachi's  edition  of  Plautus,42 
had  noted  that  certain  cases  of  dittography  were  due,  not 
to  the  changes  of  a  grammarian  or  copyist,  but  to  altera- 
tion for  the  stage;  and  he  observed  with  some  pleasure 
Hitachi's  gradual  conversion  to  his  own  point  of  view. 

37  Ed.    (1848),   Pracf.,   p.  Ixvii.    (=0pusc.   v.,   325). 

88  Ed.  ( 1849 ) ,  ad  loc.  »  Ed.    ( 1850 ) ,  Praef .,  pp.  x  ff. 

40  Ed.   (1853),  Praef.,  p.  ix.  «Ed.   (1854),  Praef.,  pp.  vii  f. 

42  Th.  Bergk  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Altertumswiss.  6  (1848),  coll.  1124- 
1149  (=0pusc.  I.,  pp.  3-29)  on  Trinummus;  8  (1850),  coll.  325-348 
(=0pusc.  i.,  pp.  29-53),  on  Miles,  Baechides,  Stichiis. 


16  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Even  Ladewig  so  far  changed  his  opinion  about  this 
"  grundverkehrt "  theory  of  Osann's,43  that  he  published 
in  186144  a  series  of  conjectures  of  his  own,  made  on 
the  basis  of  Bitschl's  text,  in  which  he  recognized  a 
number  of  parallel  passages  and  later  additions. 

Thus  at  the  end  of  half  a  century,  retractatio  had 
won  a  place  as  a  recognized  phenomenon  in  Plautus. 
The  work  since  1870  has  consisted  chiefly  of  a  more 
detailed  study  of  single  plays,  and  of  theorizing  as  to 
when  and  how  the  later  versions  entered  our  text  tradition. 

Oskar  Seyffert  45  in  1874:  suggested  a  theory  which  he 
has  since  elaborated:  namely,  that  the  variant  lines  of 
our  text  of  Plautus  were,  at  one  period  in  the  history 
of  the  manuscripts,  written  in  the  margin;  and  that 
their  present  position,  sometimes  before,  sometimes  after, 
the  place  where  they  belong,  is  due  to  careless  copying 
from  the  margin  into  the  text.  Seyffert's  statements  were 
made  on  the  basis  of  a  few  suspicious  passages.  Two  years 
later  Goetz  46  made  a  study  of  a  large  number  of  ditto- 
graphies,  dividing  them  into  four  general  classes:  (1) 
where  one  version  immediately  follows  the  other;  (2) 
where  one  is  inserted  in  the  middle  of  the  other;  (3) 
where  the  two  are  separated  by  an  interval;  (4)  where 
only  the  later  version  is  preserved.  As  characteristics  of 
the  rewritten  passages  he  notes  an  effort  for  rhythmical 
correspondence,  humor  of  a  very  poor  quality,  and  especi- 
ally the  attempt  to  shorten  excessively  long  scenes.  He 
observes  that  the  dittographies  generally  appear  in  both 
families  of  manuscripts,  and  he  therefore  concludes  that 

^'Ladewig  in  Rhein.  Mus.  3    (1845),  p.  523. 
"Ladewig  in  Philol.   17    (1861),  pp.  248-269;    452-480. 
45  0.  Seyffert,  Studio,  Plautina,  Berlin,  1874,  pp.   10  ff. 
48  G.  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6   (1876),  pp.  235-326. 


INTBODUCTIOH  1 7 

they  probably  stood  in  the  common  archetype,  into  which 
the  smaller  ones  at  least  were  introduced  as  marginal 
adscripts.  Another  general  treatment  of  the  plays  was 
undertaken  by  Langen,47  who,  in  1886,  discussed  the 
troublesome  points  of  each  play  under  three  headings: 
(1)  repetition  of  thought;  (2)  discrepancies  in  subject- 
matter;  (3)  spurious  and  suspected  passages.  The  great 
value  of  his  work  lies  in  its  completeness.  Where  two 
versions  unquestionably  exist,  Langen's  comprehensive 
study  enables  him  to  decide  which  is  Plautine;  and  on 
the  other  hand  he  can  argue  that  certain  faults  which 
are  characteristic  of  Plautus  everywhere  are  not  to  be 
charged  to  retractatio. 

In  the  ten  years  between  Goetz's  article  and  Langen' s 
book  students  of  Plautus  produced  numerous  articles  and 
studies  on  the  individual  plays.  Many  of  them  made 
some  valuable  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  retrac- 
tatio, but  nearly  all  went  too  far  in  their  search  for 
traces  of  dittography.48  Within  the  last  ten  years  there 
has  been  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  subject,  and  a  second 
(and  perhaps  a  more  moderate)  set  of  dissertations  has 
appeared. 

Recent  study  of  retractatio  has  been  more  or  less  closely 
connected  with  critical  estimates  of  the  manuscripts. 
Since  the  time  of  Ritschl,49  it  had  been  a  generally 
accepted  idea  that  the  two  families  of  manuscripts  which 
we  have  to-day — A,  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest,  written  in 
rustic  capitals  and  dating  probably  from  the  fourth  cen- 

*7P.  Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,  1886. 

48  See,    for    example :    W.    Brachmann,    De    Bacchidum    Plautinae 
retractatione  scaenica,  in  Leipz.  Stud.  3   (1880),  pp.  59-187;  A.  An- 
spach,  De  Bacchidum  Plautinae  retractatione  scaenica,  Bonn,   1882. 

49  Ritschl,  Ed.  Trin.   (1848),  pp.  xxxviii  ff. 


18  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

tury,  and  P,  the  Palatine  family,  consisting  of  a  half 
dozen  minuscule  manuscripts — went  back  to  a  common 
archetype ;  and  numerous  studies  were  made  to  determine 
which  of  these  families  was  the  more  trustworthy.50  In 
1885,  in  the  preface  to  his  edition  of  Plautus,51  Leo 
stated  a  theory  (more  fully  developed  later  52)  which  has 
given  the  impetus  to  much  of  the  recent  work  on  the 
manuscript  question.  The  theory  is:  that  our  two  fam- 
ilies of  manuscripts,  A  and  P,  represent  reading  copies 
of  an  edition  of  the  twenty-one  plays  made  by  Probus 
(a  grammarian  of  the  Flavian  period)  or  his  school. 
Both  this  edition  and  the  first  published  edition  of  Plau- 
tus, in  the  age  of  Lucilius  and  Accius,  were  made  on 
Alexandrian  principles — i.  e.,  everything  in  the  sources 
was  preserved  in  the  text,  and  critical  symbols  indicated 
spuriousness  or  referred  to  notes  in  the  commentary. 
The  variant  readings  and  parallel  versions  in  our  manu- 
scripts accordingly  owe  their  preservation  to  the  gram- 
matical work  of  these  two  periods.  The  last  point  was 
disputed  by  Seyffert.  He  had  evidently  been  collecting 
material  to  support  his  theory  of  marginal  variants  during 
the  twenty  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  publication 
of  his  Studio,  Plautina.53  He  now  took  as  a  starting 
point  Leo's  remark  54  that  the  repetition  of  Men.  1037- 
1043,  in  slightly  different  form,  between  1.  1028  and  1. 
1029,  was  due  to  a  grammarian  of  the  second  or  third 

50  Such,  as  M.  Niemeyer,  De  Plauti  fabularum  recensione  duplici, 
Berlin,    1877;    B.    Baier,    De   Plauti   fabularum   recensionibus    Am- 
brosiana   et    Palatina   commentatio   critica,    Breslau,    1885. 

51  Leo,  Ed.    (1885),  Praef. 

53  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  1-53;  Plant.  Cant.,  pp.  5  ff . 

53  E.  A.  Sonnenschein  in  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Ass.  24   (1893),  p.  7, 
quotes  Seyffert  "in  a  private  communication"  on  this  question. 

54  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  15,  16. 


INTRODUCTION  19 

century,  who  copied  this  version  into  the  margin  of  his 
manuscript.  Seyffert  55  questioned  Leo's  statement,  and, 
with  a  wealth  of  suggestion  and  illustration,  advanced  the 
contrary  theory:  that  the  variant  in  question  appeared 
in  the  common  ancestor  of  A  and  P,  and  that  at  least 
a  considerable  number  of  the  differences  between  our 
two  recensions  can  be  traced  back,  not  to  the  activity  of 
grammarians,  but  to  marginal  or  interlinear  variants  in 
the  archetype. 

Leo's  theory  was  again  attacked  by  Lindsay,  who  de- 
voted his  "  Ancient  Editions  of  Plautus  "  56  to  a  state- 
ment of  his  own  views.  According  to  Lindsay,  the  text- 
tradition  of  Plautus  followed  after  his  death  "  two  main 
divergent  channels,"  "  the  one  adhering  to  the  genuine 
'  ipsa  verba '  of  the  poet,  the  other  exhibiting  all  the 
alterations,  curtailments,  or  amplifications  introduced  by 
the  stage-managers  of  the  Revival  time  in  order  to  make 
the  performance  pleasing  to  the  audience  of  the  day." 
There  was  a  certain  amount  of  "  mixture  "  of  these  two 
versions,  and  of  addition  from  grammarians  and  com- 
mentators, but  in  general  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest 
represents  the  first  of  these  traditions,  the  genuine  "  ipsa 
verba "  of  the  plays,  and  the  Palatine  text  shows  the 
"  Revival "  adaptations. 

This  view,  "  conservative  "  and  "  optimistic  "  as  Lind- 
say thought  it,  has  aroused  much  opposition.  The  Italian 
reviewer  57  who  criticized  the  book  found  himself  "  piena- 
mente  d'accordo "  with  the  views  expressed  there,  but 
English  and  German  critics  have  treated  it  less  kindly. 

55  Seyffert  in  BerL  Phil.  Woch.  16    (1896),  coll.  252-255;   283-288. 
M  Lindsay,  The  Ancient  Editions  of  Plautus,  Oxford,  1904,  espec- 
ially pp.  35-37;    142-150. 

"  Aurelio-Giuseppe  Amatucci  in  Riv.  di  Fil.  34  (1906),  pp.  605-608. 


20  RETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Leo  58  thinks  that  Lindsay  has  too  little  regard  for  the 
views  of  other  scholars  on  the  passages  which  he  dis- 
cusses, and  is  too  anxious  to  find  "  stage  alterations " 
wherever  P  differs  from  A,  even  in  single  words.  "  Und 
wenn  man  Lindsay  recht  geben  will/7  he  concludes,  "  dass 
meistens  A  die  urspriingliche  Lesart  bietet,  so  folgt  damit 
doch  nichts  fur  seine  Hypothese,  dass  A  in  ungebrochener 
Linie  auf  Plautus,  P  in  eben  so  ungebrochener  Lime  auf 
die  gleich  nach  Plautus  eingetretene  LTberarbeitung  zu- 
riickgehe."  And  Sonnenschein 59  puts  his  opinion  con- 
cisely :  "  Mr.  Lindsay's  conception  of  the  independence 
of  the  two  recensions  from  so  early  a  date  will  not,  I 
think,  be  found  to  hold  water."  60 

One  class  of  difficulties  still  remains,  a  class  which  is 
found  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  all  classical  authors, 
and  which  may  therefore  be  briefly  dismissed.  This  kind 
of  alteration,  which  goes  by  the  name  of  interpolatio, 
originates  later  than  any  of  the  others,  and  is  due  chiefly 
to  the  work  of  grammarians  and  commentators.  It  often 
arises  through  the  addition  in  the  margin  of  a  parallel 
passage  from  some  other  play,  which  in  the  course  of 
time  is  taken  into  the  text.  The  earlier  stage  of  this 
process  appears  in  the  manuscript  B.  Cure.  u.t  1  is  con- 
cerned with  the  physical  condition  of  the  leno  Cappadox. 
In  the  margin  opposite  11.  222,  223  (though  apparently 
intended  as  an  adscript  to  the  phrase  oculis  Jierbeis  in 
1.  231)  are  the  words: 

65  Leo  in  Gott.  Gel.  Anz.  166    (1904),  pp.  358-374. 

69  Sonnenschein  in  Class.  Rev.   19    (1905),   pp.   311-316. 

60  One  great  objection  to  Lindsay's  theory,  the  existence  of  a  large 
number  of  common  errors  in  A  and  P,  was  emphasized  by  Leo 
(Gott.  Gel.  Anis.  1904,  pp.  364  ff.),  and  has  since  been  investigated 
in  detail  by  Eugen  Sicker  (Philol.  Suppl.-Band.  xi.  (1908),  pp. 
179-252). 


21 


INTRODUCTION 

solent  tibi  oculi  duri  fieri 
censesne  locustam  esse, 

and  opposite  11.  242,  243 : 

album  atrum  vinum  potas 
quid  tibi   quaesito  opus  est. 

Both  couplets  are  confused  versions  of  lines  from  Men.  v.? 
5  (923-924;  915  ff.),  the  scene  in  which  the  physician  is 
examining  Menaechmus  I.  for  symptoms  of  insanity;  and 
Ritschl  61  thinks  it  probable  that  they  were  set  down  as 
parallels  for  the  similar  scene  in  the  Curculio.  So  Stick. 
722 

Quid  igitur?  quamquam  gravatus  fuisti,  non  nocuit  tamen 

seems  to  have  been  added  as  a  parallel  to  1.  763  gravate, 
and  then  to  have  been  copied  into  the  text  after  1.  766.62 
In  the  same  way,  a  gloss  on  a  single  word  or  the  ex- 
planation of  a  difficult  phrase  may  be  added  between  the 
lines  or  in  the  margin,  and  so  creep  into  the  text.  This 
accounts  for  some  extra  lines  and  some  divergence  of 
tradition  in  our  manuscripts.  Poen.  1020 

Ut  hortum  fodiat  atque  ut  frumentum  metat 

is  apparently  an  explanation  of  palas  and  mergas  two 
lines  above;  and  Pers.  321  rogasti  P  (for  orasti  A);63 
408  periure  A  (for  iniure  P  and  Nonius)  ;  Poen.  342 
occulto  A  (for  dbstruso  P)  all  seem  to  be  glosses. 

We  are  indebted  to  Ritschl  for  clearing  away  many  of 
these  intrusions  into  our  text,  and  in  particular  for  point- 

61  Ritschl  in  Philol  1  (1846),  pp.  300  ff.  (=0pusc.  n.,  pp.  274  ff.} 

62  Ritschl  in  Philol.  1    (1846),  p.  305    (=0pusc.  H.,  p.  281). 
68  Cf.  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  73. 


22  RETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

ing  out  how  often  the  citation  of  a  parallel  passage  might 
cause  confusion.64  Goetz,  in  his  discussion  of  Ditto- 
graphien  im  Plautustexte^  and  Kellermann  in  the  article 
entitled  De  Plauto  Sui  Imitatore^  made  similar  studies, 
but  in  each  of  these  the  work  on  interpolatio  was  simply 
a  preliminary  to  the  main  investigation. 

The  century  of  philological  work  on  Plautus,  the  course 
of  which  has  just  been  outlined,  makes  it  possible  to  sum- 
marize the  causes  of  difficulty  and  inconsistency  in  the 
plays  as  follows:  (1)  free  treatment  by  Plautus  of  his 
Greek  originals,  resulting  in  omissions  or  in  the  combina- 
tion of  two  originals  into  one  Latin  play;  (2)  Plautine 
carelessness  in  detail;67  (3)  changes  in  the  text  made 
during  the  Revival,  a  generation  after  the  death  of 
Plautus;  and  (4)  parallel  adscripts,  explanations,  and 
glosses,  added  by  later  scribes. 

The  mass  of  difficulties  grouped  under  the  third  head 
of  this  summary  (retractatio)  forms  the  subject  of  the 
present  investigation.  An  effort  has  been  made  first  of 
all  to  determine  whether  the  two  great  families  of  manu- 

"Ritschl  in  Philol.  1  (1846),  pp.  300-314  (=0pusc.  n.,  pp.  274- 
291). 

65Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.   6    (1876),  pp.  236   ff. 

66Kellerman  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.  7    (1903),  pp.   131  ff. 

67  Inconsistencies  due  to  the  first  two  causes  are  traceable  to 
Plautus  himself.  Further  back  than  Plautus  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  go.  But  as  the  charm  of  Menander  shows  through 
even  the  mutilated  Cistellaria,  so  it  is  possible  that  a  few  of  the 
defects  in  Plautus  may  be  referred  to  his  Greek  models.  Wilam- 
owitz  (Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.  13  ff.)  has  made  it  probable 
that  the  poor  technique  and  crude  character-drawing  of  the  Persa 
go  back  to  an  original  in  Middle  Comedy,  and  it  may  be  that 
Acts  I.-III.  of  the  Poenulus,  which  are  distinctly  poorer  than  the 
other  half  of  the  play,  merely  reflect  the  weakness  and  verbosity 
of  the  Greek  original.  (See  the  analysis  below). 


INTRODUCTION 


23 


scripts  differ  in  the  amount  of  retractatio  that  they  indi- 
cate, and  secondarily  to  throw  new  light  on  the  general 
problem  of  retractatio.  Since  the  two  groups  of  manu- 
scripts can  be  compared  only  where  it  is  possible  to  know 
the  contents  of  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest,  the  work  is 
limited  to  the  five  plays  best  preserved  in  that  manu- 
script (Persa,  Poenulus,  Pseudotus,  Stichus,  Trinum- 
mus),  and  primarily  to  those  portions  of  the  plays  the 
text  of  which  is  contained  in  both  A  and  P.  Except  in 
cases  where  the  source  of  the  confusion  is  doubtful,  diffi- 
culties due  to  other  causes  than  retractatio  are  excluded. 
Of  the  passages  suspected  of  retractatio,  only  those  in 
which  its  presence  seems  fairly  probable  are  discussed; 
others,  which  can  lead  only  to  questionable  conclusions, 
are  listed  in  footnotes.68  Citations  are  made  from  the 
Goetz-Schoell  text  of  Plautus  (Editio  Minor)™  and 
Studemund's  Apographon  70  is  taken  as  the  basis  of  the 
work  on  A. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  two  families  of 
manuscripts  on  which  our  text  of  Plautus  is  based.  A 
fuller  description  is  a  necessary  preliminary  to  an  in- 
vestigation which  must  constantly  refer  to  the  manu- 
scripts. Until  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
only  one  of  these  families,  the  Palatine,  was  known. 
This  group,  which  received  its  name  from  the  fact  that 

68  Variations  of  a  word  or  phrase  are  not  considered.     Of  course 
some    of    these    may    be    due    to    retractatio     (e.    g.,    Pers.    597    me 
inpulsore   atque  inlice   A,   suasu   atque  inpulsu  meo  P;    Poen.   343 
palpas  et  lallas  A,  caput  et  corpus  copulas  P )  ;   but  the  majority 
of  cases  are  probably  to  be  assigned  to  scribal  error  or  interpolation. 

69  G.   Goetz  and  F.   Schoell,  Plauti  Comoediae,  Leipzig,    1892-1896 
(revised   1904-1909). 

70  W.  Studemund,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Fabularum  Reliquiae  Ambros- 
ianae,   Berlin,    1889. 


24  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTTJS 

its  most  important  representatives,  B  and  €,  were  at 
one  time  in  the  library  of  the  Elector  Palatine,  comprises 
six  or  seven  manuscripts,  ranging  in  date  from  the  early 
tenth  to  the  late  twelfth  century.  Though  the  manu- 
scripts vary  greatly  in  authority,  their  common  origin 
is  a  recognized  fact.71  Therefore,  for  the  purposes  of  this 
paper,  variations  between  the  individual  manuscripts  are 
disregarded,  and  the  whole  family  is  designated  by  the 
symbol  P. 

Of  the  other  family  of  manuscripts  there  is  only  one 
representative,  a  palimpsest  in  the  Ambrosian  Library 
at  Milan,  written  about  the  fourth  century,  and  covered 
in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  with  parts  of  the  Book 
of  Kings.  It  was  discovered  by  Cardinal  Mai,  under 
whose  direction  an  imperfect  collation  was  published  in 
1815  with  the  title  M.  Accii  Plauti  Fragmenta  Inedita. 
Even  at  that  time  the  manuscript  was  in  a  bad  condition. 
Some  leaves  were  lost  altogether,  and  those  that  remained 
had  been  injured  by  the  cleaning  process,  by  the  ink  of 
the  second  writing,  and  by  the  chemicals  that  Mai  used 
to  restore  the  original  text.  With  careless  handling 
and  with  the  passage  of  time,  some  of  the  pages  were 
torn,  and  others  decayed  so  as  to  leave  only  a  border 
around  the  edge,  while  the  ink  gradually  faded.  Ritschl, 
writing  in  1837,72  lamented  the  loss  of  some  passages 
(e.  g.,  in  the  Cistellaria) ,  which  could  have  been  read 
when  the  palimpsest  was  first  discovered,  and  censured 
Mai  for  not  having  published  a  complete  collation  at 

71  See  the  stemma  codicum  in  Kitschl's  edition  of  the  Trinummus 
(1848),  and  the  discussions  in  more  recent  critical  editions — e.  g., 
Lindsay's  edition  of  the  Captivi,  London,  1900. 

"Ritschl  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Altertumswiss.  1837,  coll.  737-758 
(=0pusc.  II.,  pp.  166-197). 


INTRODUCTION  25 

that  time;  and  Geppert  found  in  1846  73  that  much  that 
had  been  visible  even  the  year  before  had  faded  away. 
Studemund,  "that  scholar-hero/'  as  Sonnenschein  calls 
him,74  spent  the  greater  part  of  twenty-five  years  in 
deciphering  the  palimpsest,75  only  to  die  before  his  results 
were  given  to  the  world.  They  were  brought  out  by  his 
friend  Oskar  Seyffert,  and  are  now  accessible  to  the  stu- 
dent of  Plautus,  in  a  form  which  is  of  infinitely  more 
value  to  him  than  the  manuscript  itself  would  be. 

Fortunately,  even  the  smallest  fragments  are  of  value 
for  the  study  of  retractatio.  A  few  letters  at  the  begin- 
ning or  end  of  the  lines,  even  where  all  the  rest  of 
the  passage  is  gone,  show  whether  or  not  a  certain  passage 
appeared  in  A,  and  what  was  the  order  of  the  lines. 
Even  the  contents  of  a  missing  sheet  may  sometimes  be 
estimated  accurately.  Difficulty  arises  when  the  missing 
section  contained  a  canticum,  in  which  case  there  can 
be  no  certainty  as  to  how  the  lines  were  divided,  or 
unusually  long  verses,  like  trochaic  septenarii  or  iambic 
octonarii,  which  are  run  over  in  varying  proportions, 
sometimes  only  one  line  out  of  thirty-five,  sometimes 
three  lines  out  of  four.  Passages  containing  scene-head- 
ings also  cause  difficulty.  In  general,  the  scene-division  76 
of  A  corresponds  to  that  of  our  printed  texts;  but  some- 
times, (e.  g.,  Pseud.  IV.,  5,  6)  two  scenes  are  run  together 
under  the  same  rubric,  and  sometimes  (e.  g.,  Pers.  IV.,  T), 
where  a  single  character  leaves  the  stage,  there  is  no 

73  K.   Geppert,    Uber   den   Codex   Ambrosianus   u.   seinen  Einfluss 
auf  die  plautinische  Kritik,  Leipzig,  1847,  p.  28. 

74  Sonnenschein  in  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Ass.  24    (1893),  p.  10. 

75  W.  Studemund,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Fabularum  Reliquiae  Amlros- 
ianae,    Berlin,    1889    (Edited   by    0.    Seyffert).     Prooem.,    p.    xxii., 
Seyffert's  note. 

"There  is  no  division  into  acts  in  any  of  the  manuscripts. 


26  EETRACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

new  scene-heading.  On  the  other  hand,  A  leaves  a  space 
of  one  line  before  the  speech  of  the  Caterva  (Capt. 
1029),  and  makes  a  similar  break  at  the  entrance  of 
Saturio  (Pers.  726).  The  amount  of  space  left  for 
the  scene-headings  is  not  always  the  same.  In  about 
75  per  cent  of  the  cases  extant  the  scene-headings  occupy 
two  lines,  but  the  exceptions  occur  so  irregularly  that  one 
can  never  be  sure  how  much  space  was  occupied  by 
the  missing  headings.  In  the  present  paper,  calculation 
of  the  amount  of  text  in  lost  sheets  of  A  is  for  the  most 
part  confined  to  continuous  passages  of  trimeter  without 
scene-divisions.  Even  here,  of  course,  the  results  are  not 
absolutely  certain ;  in  other  places,  though  the  calculation 
has  occasionally  been  made,  it  has  even  slighter  claims 
to  accuracy. 


CHAPTEK  I. 
PER8A 

The  hero  of  the  Persa  is  a  slave,  Toxilus,  who  holds  a 
position  of  trust  in  his  master's  household,  and  has  been 
left  in  charge  during  the  master's  absence.  Toxilus  is 
in  love  with  Lemniselenis,  a  girl  in  the  service  of  the 
leno  Dordalus,  and  is  anxious  to  obtain  her  freedom. 
But  as  he  himself,  being  a  slave,  can  neither  purchase 
another  slave  nor  be  patronus  of  a  freedwoman,  he  ar- 
ranges with  Dordalus  that  on  a  certain  day  he  shall 
pay  the  required  sum  of  money,  and  that  Dordalus  shall 
then  go  through  the  form  necessary  to  set  her  free.1  The 
day  approaches,  and  Toxilus  has  not  succeeded  in  getting 
the  money.  He  therefore  persuades  his  friend  Sagaristio, 
who  is  likewise  a  slave,  to  lend  him  six  hundred  nummi, 
promising  to  repay  him  in  a  few  days.  Sagaristio  pro- 
vides the  sum  in  question  by  appropriating  funds  given 
him  by  his  master  for  the  purchase  of  cattle ;  the  money 
is  paid,  and  Lemniselenis  is  set  free.  In  the  meantime, 
Toxilus  has  arranged  another  scheme  to  make  the  leno 
himself  pay  back  the  sum  that  has  been  borrowed  from 
Sagaristio.  The  daughter  of  the  parasite  Saturio  is 
dressed  up  as  if  she  came  from  the  Far  East;  Sagaristio 
puts  on  Persian  garb,  and  is  introduced  to  Dordalus 
as  a  messenger  from  Toxilus'  master,  who  has  an  Arabian 
girl  for  sale.  Dordalus  sees  the  girl,  is  so  charmed  with 
her  that  he  is  willing  to  make  the  purchase  suo  periculo, 

*Ct   U.   v.   Wilamowitz-Moellendorff   in   Index  schol.    Gott.    1893- 
1894,  p.   18. 

27 


28  EETEACTATIO    IN"    PLAUTUS 

and  pays  the  exorbitant  sum  of  sixty  minae  2  on  the  spot. 
Of  course  the  natural  sequel  follows.  As  soon  as  the 
pseudo-Persian  is  out  of  the  way,  the  father  of  the  girl 
appears  and  threatens  a  law-suit;  and  the  play  ends 
with  an  uproarious  banquet  of  Toxilus,  Sagaristio,  and 
Lemniselenis. 

The  Persa  stands  alone  among  the  plays  of  Plautus 
in  showing  indications  of  an  original  in  Middle  Comedy. 
Wilamowitz  3  was  the  first  scholar  to  suggest  this  date 
for  the  original  of  the  play,  and  his  theory,  which  has 
been  accepted  by  Seyffert,4  Hueffner,5  and  Leo,6  seems 
to  be  well  established,  in  spite  of  a  recent  attempt  to 
combat  it.7  Wilamowitz's  strongest  argument  is  that  the 
play  represents  the  Persian  Empire  as  still  intact.  The 
story  of  a  messenger  who  comes  ex  Persia  (1.  498),  with 
news  of  the  capture  of  Chrysopolis  in  Arabia  by  the 
Persians,  points  to  a  date  before  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander. For,  while  it  is  true  that  the  account  of  the 
Persian  campaign  makes  no  pretensions  to  truthfulness,8 
still  the  Athenian  public  must  have  demanded  a  certain 
amount  of  verisimilitude,  and  a  story  in  which  Persians 
figured  as  the  chief  actors  would  have  had  no  point  after 
the  downfall  of  the  Persian  Empire.  Therefore  we  may 

2  The    regular    price   was    twenty   or    thirty    minae.     Cf .    Rltschl, 
Opusc.  II.,  p.  308,  note. 

3  Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.   13-26. 

4  Seyffert  in  Bursian's  Jahresber.  1895,  pp.  39  ff. 

6  F.  Hueffner,  De  Plauti  Comoediarum  Exemplis  Atticis,  Gottin- 
gen,  1894,  pp.  70  f.;  74-76: 

6  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  110;  cf.  Leo  in  Hermes  41  (1906),  pp. 
441  ff. 

7M.  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.  8  (1907), 
pp.  145-191. 

8Cf.  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  pp.  181  ff. 


PEES  A  29 

assume  that  the  original  of  the  Persa  was  a  Greek  play 
of  the  age  of  Demosthenes. 

To  the  unfinished  technique  of  the  Greek  original  may 
be  due  certain  defects  in  the  plot  and  the  character- 
drawing  of  the  Persa.  The  exceptional  subject-matter 
of  the  play  attracted  the  attention  of  Gamer  arius,  who 
commented  on  it :  "  Argumentum  f  abulae  est  exile,  ama- 
tionis  servilis."  Although  servilis  amatio  is  touched  upon 
in  some  of  the  other  plays  (Amph.  658;  Mil.  1007-1008; 
Stick.  431-434),  there  is  no  other  play  in  which  the 
love  of  a  slave  forms  the  main  theme.9  But  this  argu- 
mentum  exile  may  be  merely  another  indication  that  the 
play  originated  in  Middle  Comedy.  Slaves  are  promi- 
nent in  several  of  the  earlier  plays  of  Aristophanes  (we 
remember  Dionysus  and  Xanthias  in  the  Frogs,  the 
Paphlagonian  and  his  rival  in  the  Knights);  and  in  the 
Plutus,  which  stands  on  the  border-line  between  Old  and 
Middle  Comedy,  the  slave  Carion  is  one  of  the  most 
important  figures.  It  would  have  been  only  natural, 
therefore,  if  this  tradition  had  continued  and  slaves  had 
played  an  active  part  in  the  plots  of  Middle  Comedy.10 

The  composition  of  the  Persa  is  poor,  although  the 
theory  of  contaminatio ,  suggested  by  Ladewig  ll  and  dis- 
cussed at  length  by  van  Ijsendijk,12  has  not  been  proved. 
Van  Ijsendijk  thought  that  the  Persa  was  made  up  of 
two  plays:  (A)  the  Persa  (our  present  Acts  IV.-V.),  in 
which  a  free-born  girl  is  put  through  a  form  of  sale, 


9  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  p.  152. 

10  W.  Suss  in  Rhein..Mus.  65    (1910),  p.  456;  cf.  Wilamowitz  in 
Index  schol.    Gott.   1893-1894,  pp.   18   ff. 

"Ladewig,  Uber  den  Kanon  des  Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neustrelitz, 
1842,  pp.  38  ff. 
"A.  van  Ijsendijk,  De  T.  Macci  Plauti  Persa,  Utrecht,  1884. 


30  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

and  with  the  proceeds  of  this  sale  a  lover  gets  his  arnica; 
(B)  the  Boaria  or  Sagaristio,  in  which  a  slave  steals 
the  money  given  him  by  his  master  to  buy  cattle,  and 
so  helps  the  erilis  filius  to  get  his  arnica  free.  But, 
as  van  Ijsendijk's  critics  have  observed,13  the  two  lines 
of  action  start  together,  and  are  connected  throughout 
the  play;  and  the  whole  object  of  the  pretended  sale 
is  to  get  the  leno  to  pay  for  Lemniselenis  with  his  own 
money,  and  so  repay  the  loan  of  Sagaristio.  Anyone 
who  is  not  convinced  of  the  unity  of  the  Persa  need  only 
compare  it  with  one  of  the  certainly  contaminated  plays 
(Miles  or  Poenulus).  The  length  of  the  Persa  is  only 
857  lines,  while  each  of  the  others  has  1400  lines  or 
more ;  and  the  two  threads  of  the  story  are  closely  inter- 
woven here,  while  in  the  others  the  two  plots  are  quite 
distinct,  and  the  line  of  division  clearly  marked. 

The  banquet  scene  at  the  close  is  only  loosely  con- 
nected with  the  rest  of  the  play,  but  there  is  no  reason 
for  suspecting  a  separate  origin.  The  persons  involved 
are  the  same  as  in  the  earlier  scenes,  and  their  conduct 
is  quite  consistent;  Paegnium,  for  instance,  shows  him- 
self just  the  same  merry  wag  in  Act  V.  as  he  was  in 
Act  II.  To  one  who  remembers  the  festivities  with 
which  Aristophanes  ends  his  plays — the  banquet  spread 
for  Dicaeopolis,  the  weddings  of  Peisthetairus  and  Try- 
gaeus — the  last  act  of  the  Persa  will  sound  a  familiar 
note;  and  the  discomfiture  of  the  leno  in  the  final  scene 
will  seem  closely  akin  to  the  horseplay  of  the  Old 
Comedy.14 

"Seyffert  in  Bursian's  Jahresber.  1886,  pp.  111!.;  Meyer,  De 
Plauti  Persa,  pp.  159  ff. 

"Wila-mowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.  22  f.;  Suss  in 
Rhein.  Mus.  65  (1910),  p.  456. 


PEKSA 


31 


The  character-drawing  shows  the  broad  lines  of  the 
Old  Comedy  rather  than  the  finer  touches  of  the  New. 
The  leno  Dordalus,  stupid  and  gullible  to  the  last  degree, 
is  not  far  removed  from  some  of  the  exaggerated  figures 
of  Aristophanes.  The  daughter  of  Saturio,  too,  with  her 
elevated  diction  and  her  rhetorical  sentences,  may  reflect 
the  technique  of  the  transitional  period,  when  a  free-born 
woman  was  as  yet  an  unfamiliar  figure  on  the  comic 
stage,  and  the  playwright  had  to  borrow  some  touches 
from  the  heroines  of  tragedy.15 


TO.    Cape    h6c    sis.     DO.    Quin    das?     TO.    Nfimmi    sexcenti    hfc 

erunt     437 

Probi,  numerati:   fae  sit  mulier  libera, 
Atque  htie  continue   adduce.     DO.    lam   faxo  hfc  erit. 
Non  he"rcle  quoi  nunc  hoc  dem  spectandum  scio.  440 

TO.    Fortasse  metuis   fn   manum   concre"dere? 
tMirum  quin  citius  iam  a  foro  argentarii 
Abeunt  quam  in  cursu  rotula  circumu6rtitur. 
Abi    istac    trauorsis   angiportis   ad   forum: 

Eadem  fsta[ha]ec   facito   mulier  ad  me  transeat  445 

Per   h6rtum.     DO.    Iam   hie    faxo   Merit.     TO.    At   ne  prCpalam. 
DO.  Sapienter  sane.     TO.  Stipplicatum  eras  eat 
DO.  Ita  he'rcle  uero.     TO.  Dum  stas,  reditum  op6rtuit. 

440  if.  The  difficulties  of  this  passage  have  puzzled 
scholars  for  the  last  hundred  years,  and  the  number  of 
explanations  is  almost  equal  to  the  number  of  writers 
on  the  subject.  The  dialogue  runs  quite  smoothly  down 
to  1.  439 ;  then  Dordalus  says  (1.  440),  evidently  referring 
to  the  money  that  Toxilus  has  just  paid :  Non  Jiercle  quoi 
nunc  hoc  dem  spectandum  scio — i.  e.,  spectandum,  utrum 
probum  sit  necne.1Q  Toxilus7  reply  (1.  441) :  Fortasse 

15  Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.   Gott.   1893-1894,  pp.  25  f. 
"Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  334. 


32  KETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

metuis  in  manum  concredere,  is  disjointed  and  hardly 
intelligible,  since  it  lacks  both  direct  object  and  dative 
of  the  person  with  in  manum  concredere.  The  couplet 
which  follows  (11.  442-443)  bears  a  striking  resemblance 
toll.  433-436: 

DO.    Mirtim  quin  tibi  ego  cre"derem  |  ut  ide"m  mihi  433 

Faceres   quod   partim  faciunt  argentarii : 

Ubi  quid  credideris,  cltius  extemplo  foro 

Fugiunt  quam  ex  porta  Ifidis  quom  emissust  lepus, 

but  it  has  no  grammatical  construction  and  no  logical 
connection  with  the  rest  of  the  dialogue.  Then  (11.  444- 
448)  come  certain  directions  about  the  freeing  of  Lemni- 
selenis. 

Out  of  the  tangle  we  can  separate  11.  442-443,  which 
are  clearly  a  fragmentary  parallel  version  (probably  with 
a  line  lost  between  quin  and  citius)  of  11.  433-436.  The 
first  version,  a  comparison  of  the  money-changers  to  a 
hare  at  the  games,  may  be  Plautine,  since  we  know  of 
the  use  of  animals  in  the  games  before  the  death  of 
Plautus.  (Liv.  39,  22  tells  of  a  venatio  data  leonum  et 
pantherum  in  the  year  186  B.  C.)  This  reference  is 
paralleled  by  one  to  the  ostrich  in  an  earlier  scene  (1.  199 
marinus  passer  per  circum),  and  the  two  together  make 
it  probable  that  there  was  a  keen  interest  in  venationes 
at  the  time  that  the  play  was  produced.  The  second 
simile  (11.  442-443),  which  is  much  more  general,  may 
have  been  added  after  this  interest  had  declined. 

With  this  intrusive  couplet  removed,  it  is  possible  to 
trace  a  certain  connection  in  the  dialogue.  Toxilus  pays 
the  money,  saying,  "  Set  the  woman  free,  and  then  bring 
her  to  me  immediately."  Dordalus  murmurs,  half  to 
himself,  as  he  examines  the  money,  "  How  am  I  to  know 


PEKSA 


33 


whether  this  is  good  or  not  ? "  and  Toxilus  adds,  seeing 
his  hesitation,  "  Are  you  afraid  to  hand  her  over  to 
me?"17  Then  he  goes  on  rapidly:  "Take  this  side 
street  to  the  forum ;  [have  your  money  tested  and  set  her 
free]  ;  then  bring  her  back  secretly  by  the  same  path. 
[I  want  her  company  to-day  myself]  ;  to-morrow  she  may 
go  to  sacrifice  for  her  liberation."  But  even  so  there  is 
much  that  is  not  clear.  We  do  not  quite  get  the  force 
of  metuis  .  .  .  concredere;  no  explanation  is  given  for 
the  injunction  to  secrecy  (11.  444-446)  ;  and  the  reason 
why  the  sacrifice  is  to  be  postponed  until  the  morrow  must 
be  inferred. 

It  seems  probable  that  the  end  of  this  scene,  like  a 
later  section  (11.  738  fi\),  has  suffered  considerable  cut- 
ting, which  has  left  only  the  bare  essentials  of  the  dia- 
logue, without  the  necessary  connection.  If  this  is  so, 
we  may  put  down  11.  442-443  as  a  parallel  version  of 
11.  433-436,  and  say  that  11.  440-441,  444-448  are  a 
shortened  version  of  a  scene  now  lost. 


P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 

A  agrees  with  P  through  1.  443,  then  deest  444-478  (35  lines  of 
senarius).  The  passage  contains  three  scene-headings,  which,  if 
given  in  the  regular  form,  would  have  occupied  6  lines  more,  making 
a  total  of  41  lines.  The  one  sheet  missing  in  A  would  have  given 
space  for  only  38  lines  in  all.  But  it  is  possible  that  some  of  the 
headings  were  missing  in  A  (Cf.  iv.,  9,  where  A  makes  no  division), 
or  that  the  scene-headings  occupied  only  one  line  each  (Cf.  in.,  2; 

"The  object  of  the  verb  has  commonly  been  taken  as  argentum, 
but  there  is  no  reason  why  mulierem  should  not  be  supplied  from 
1.  438.  It  is  the  woman  who  is  Toxilus'  great  concern  at  this  point 
(Cf.  11.  438,  445,  447.)  The  use  of  concredere  with  a  person  as  the 
direct  object  is  supported  by  Capt.  348  (filium)  ;  Cist.  245  (ami- 
cam)  ;  and  manus  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  power  of  a  man 
over  the  women  of  his  household  is  too  well  known  to  need  comment. 


34  EETEACTATIO    IN"    PLATJTUS 

m.,  3  in  A.18     In  any  case,  A  has  11.  442-443,  which  are  the  most 
suspicious  verses. 


TO.   Sagaristio,  heus,  exi  atque  educe  ulrginem 

Et   istas  tabellas   quas   consignaul   tibi, 

Quas  tu  attulisti  mi  ab  ero  meo  usque  e  Persia. 

460-461.  This  couplet  seems  to  be  a  later  insertion, 
introduced  to  prepare  the  audience  for  the  sudden  appear- 
ance of  the  letter  in  1.  497.  No  mention  has  been  made 
of  this  letter  in  the  previous  plans  of  Toxilus,19  and 
when  the  trick  is  finally  played  on  Dordalus,  it  is  not 
Sagaristio,  but  Toxilus  himself,  who  hands  over  the  tablet 
(1.  497).  The  two  lines  are  an  awkward  addition  after 
1.  459,  and  the  dependence  of  tabellas  upon  educere  is 
unparalleled.20 

A  deest. 


TO.  Age  illuc  apscede  pr6cul  e  conspectfi:    [SA.]    tace.  467 

Vbi  cum  lenone  me"  uidebis  conloqui, 

Id  erit  adeundi   te"mpus.     nunc  age"rite  uos. 

Jj 67-468.  These  verses  are  identical  with  727-728,  and 
must  therefore  be  regarded  with  suspicion  in  one  of 
the  two  places.  Some  connecting  link  is  necessary  be- 
tween IV.,  2  and  IV.,  3,  and  we  must  either  retain  467- 

18  The    latter    explanation    is    suggested    by    Studemund.     See    his 
note  on  fol.  575v. 

19  A  discussion  of  all  the  details  of  the  plan  was   of  course  not 
necessary.     The  trick  is  perfectly  clear  without  a  previous  mention 
of  the  letter,  as  is  the  similar  trick  in  Bacch.  iv.,  9,  where  1.  941  is 
the  only  preparation  for  the  presentation  of  the  letter  in  11.  997  ff. 

20Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  178. 


PEES  A  35 

468  or  assume  that  these  verses  have  crowded  out  other 
directions  to  Sagaristio. 


A  deest. 


DO.  lubedum  ea  hoc  acce"dat  ad  me.     SA.  I  sane  ac  morem  ill! 

gere          605 

Percontare,  exquire  quiduis.     TO.    Age,  age  nunc  tu:   in  proe*lium 
Vide   ut  ingrediare   auspicate.     VI.    LIquidumst   auspicium:    tace. 
Curabo,  ut  praedati  pulcre  ad  castra  conuortamini. 
TO.   Concede  istuc:    e"go  illam  adducam.     DO.   Age,   ut  rem  esse 

in  nostram  putas. 

TO.  6hodum  hue,  uirgo.     ulde  sis  quid  agas.     VI.  Taceas:  curabo 

ut  uoles.         610 

605-610.  The  reader  who  tries  to  imagine  the  stage 
"  business "  of  this  part  of  the  play  finds  himself  in 
difficulty.  Dordalus  has  expressed  a  wish  to  question  the 
girl,  and  the  pseudo-Persian  Sagaristio  has  given  his 
permission  (11.  605-606).  Then  Toxilus  speaks  11.  606  f. 
(Age,  age  nunc  tu:  in  proelium  vide  ut  ingrediare  auspi- 
cato)  to  the  girl,  and  she  replies  in  a  low  tone.  But  in 
the  very  next  line  Toxilus  is  saying  to  Dordalus,  Concede 
istuc;  ego  illam  adducam.  His  next  speech,  an  aside 
to  the  girl,  and  her  reply  (609-610)  repeat  the  sense  of 
11.  606-608,  and  have  in  several  places  identical  phrasing 
(607  vide,  cf.  610  vide;  607  tace,  cf.  610  taceas;  608 
curabo,  cf.  610  curabo).  Clearly  we  have  here  two 
alternative  versions  (605-608;  609-610),  of  which  the 
first  is  the  cleverer  and  therefore  probably  the  genuine.21 

A  has  605-610  in  the  order  in  which  they  appear  in  the  Goetz- 
Schoell  text. 

P.  omits  608,  610   (i.  e.,  one  line  of  each  version). 


21  Cf.  J.  H.  Gray  in  Class.  Rev.  14  (1900),  p.  24. 


36  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

DO.  Toxile,  quid  ag6?  TO.  Di  deaeque  te  agitant  irati,  [et] 

scelus,  666 

Qui  ha<n>c  non  properes  dSstinare.  DO.  tHabeto.  TO.  Eu.  prae- 
datu's  probe:  abi,  argentum  ecfer  hue. 

N6n  edepol   minis  trecentis   carast:    fecistf  lucri. 

SA.    Heus  tu,   etiam  pro  ue"stimentis  hue  decem  accede"nt  minae. 

DO.  Abscedent  enim,  n6n  accedent.  TO.  Tace  sis:  non  tu  ilium 

uides  670 

Quae"rere  ansam,  inf6ctum  ut  faciat?  abisne  atque  argentum  petis? 

********       atque    ut    digntist    perit.     67  lb 

DO.  Heus  tu,  serua  isttim.  TO.  Quin  tu  intro  is?  DO.  Abeo 

atque  argentum  adfero. 

666  ff.  A  shortening  of  the  scene  seems  to  be  indicated 
by  the  half -line  obi,  argentum  ecfer  hue,  which  is  appended 
to  1.  667  in  P.  Apparently  this  phrase  was  substituted 
for  eu,  praedatu's  probe  (1.  667), ?2  with  the  result  that 
the  Palatine  manuscripts  have  retained  both  endings,  while 
in  A  the  line  ending  <eu  praedatu' s>  probe  appears  just 
before  1.  669.  There  are  further  signs  of  change  at  the 
very  end  of  the  scene.  The  fragment  of  a  line  atque 
ut  dignust  perit  (671b),  which  is  preserved  only  in  A, 
seems  to  belong  to  a  bit  of  comment  after  the  Zeno's 
departure,  and  is  hardly  suitable  before  1.  672. 23  To  the 
first  half  of  this  fragmentary  line  may  belong  the  adverb 
interibi,  cited  by  the  Glossarium  Plautinum  from  some 
point  in  the  Persa  between  1.  588  and  1.  677,  but  not 
to  be  found  in  our  present  text.24  It  is  quite  possible, 
therefore,  that  we  have  here  traces  of  some  such  short- 
ening as  this: 

^Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 

23  Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 

24  The  strictness  with  which  the  author  of  the   glossary   follows 
the  order  of  lines  in  the  text  of  Plautus  makes  it  improbable  that 
interibi  in  this  position  refers  to  1.   165  of  the  play.     Cf.  RitschL 
Opusc.  II.,  pp.  266  ff.;  Schoell,  Ed.    (1892),  Praef.,  p.  xx. 


PEES  A  37 

667.  DO.    Habeto.     TO.    Abi,    argentum    ecfer   hue. 

67 lb     (Schoell's  supplement)     DO.    Interibi  opperire.     SA.   Aegre 
avidus  abit   atque   ut   dignust   perit. 

A  is  very  illegible  at  this  point.  The  end  of  665  is  preserved, 
and  then  follows  a  space  of  three  lines,  which  may  have  contained 
666  and  667,  the  latter  divided  so  as  to  take  up  two  lines.  After 
this  it  has  a  line  ending  probe,  and  then  the  ends  of  669-671,  671b, 
672.  So  A  apparently  omitted  668,  and  added  67  lb,  which  does  not 
occur  in  P. 

P  has  667  in  the  form  -  -  -  habeto,  eu  praedatus  probe,  abi 
argentum  ecfer  hue,  and  omits  67  P. 


Vaniloquidorus    Vfrginisuend6nides  702 

t  Nugiepiloquides    Argentumextenebronides 
Tedlgniloquides    Nummosexpalponides 
Quodse"melarripides   Numquameripides :    e"m   tibi.  705 

704-  The  absurd  patronymics  of  1.  704,  which  mean 
either :  "  Talk-to-you-as-you-deserve-son,  Nonsense-son, 
Flatter-son,"  or  "  Talk-to-you-as-you-deserve-son,  Flatter- 
money-out-of-you-son,"  according  as  we  follow  the  reading 
of  A  or  P,  repeat  the  sense  of  the  preceding  line :  "  Talk- 
nonsense-to-you-son,  Bore-your-money-out-of-you-son." 25 
The  line  may  have  been  substituted  to  expand  the  joke. 

The  line  appears  in  both  A  and  P,  though  A  reads  nugidespalpo- 
nides,   and   P   nundesexpalponides. 


DO.    Immo  equidem  gratiam  719 

Tibi,  Toxile,  habeo:    nam  te  sensi  s6dulo 
Mihi  dare  bonam  operam.     TO.    Tibine  ego?  immo  t  sedulo. 
DO.   Attat,  oblitus  sum  Intus  dudum  edlcere 
Quae  u6lui   edicta.     ads6rua  hanc.     TO.    Saluast  haec  quidem. 
VI.    Pat6r   nunc   cessat.     TO.    Quid   si   admoneam?    VI.    T6mpua 

est. 

25  Cf.  Leo,  Ed.   (1896),  ad  loc. 


38  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

TO.    Heus,  Saturio,  exi.    nunc  est  ilia  occasio  725 

Inimicum  ulcisci.     SA.    Ecce  me:    numquid  moror? 
TO.    Age  illuc  abscede  pr6cul  e  conspectti:   tace. 
Vbi  ctim  lenone  me"  uidebis  conloqui, 
Turn  turbam  facito.     SA.    Dictum  sapientl  sat  est. 
TO.    Tune,  quando  abiero —    <SA.>    Quln  taces?  scio  quid  uelis. 

730 
DOKDALVS.  TOXILVS.  VIRGO. 

LENO  SEEVOS 

DO.    Transcidi  loris  6mnis  aduenie"ns  domi: 

Ita  mihi  supellex  squalet  atque  aede"s  meae. 

TO.    Redis  tu  tandem?     DO.    R6deo.     TO.    Ne  ego  hodi€  tibi 

Bona  multa  feci.     DO.    Fateor:   habeo  gratiam. 

722  ff.  Much  has  been  written  about  the  defects  of 
the  play  at  this  point.26  It  is  strange  that  Dordalus 
should  go  off  the  stage  immediately  after  he  has  purchased 
the  supposed  Persian  girl,  and  should  leave  her  in  the 
care  of  Toxilus,  instead  of  taking  her  inside  the  house 
with  him;  even  more  strange  that  he  should  reappear 
six  lines  later,  announcing  (1.  731),  Transcidi  loris  omnis 
adveniens  domi.  In  the  meantime,  Saturio  has  emerged 
from  his  hiding-place  and  has  been  given  some  brief 
and  quite  inapposite  directions  about  the  line  of  action 
to  follow  when  the  leno  returns.  Two  verses  of  this 
dialogue  (727-728)  repeat  a  couplet  earlier  in  the  play 
(467-468).  Of  the  remaining  lines,  several  show  the 
stock  phrases  of  comedy  (726  numquid  moror,  cf.  1.  462 ; 
729  dictum  sapienti  sat  est,  cf.  Ter.  Phorm.  541 ;  734 
bona  multa  feci,  cf.  1.  263).  Immediately  after  the 
return  of  Dordalus  (1.  734)  the  conversation  goes  back 
to  the  subject  under  discussion  before  he  left  (1.  721)  ; 
and  the  dozen  lines  intervening  seem  to  have  no  purpose 

26  Cf.  especially  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  pp.  300  f.; 
Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  p.  21;  Meyer,  De  Plauti 
Persa,  pp.  172  ff. 


PEESA 


39 


but  to  prepare  for  the  entrance  of  Saturio  at  1.  73 8. 27 
But  the  plan  had  been  that  Saturio  should  appear  sud- 
denly (cf.  11.  162-164),  and  his  opening  lines  suit  a 
first  appearance.  Therefore  11.  722-734  are  probably  a 
later  addition. 

A  has  the  whole  passage. 
P.  omits  1.  730. 


SA.    Nisi  ego  illun<c>  horainem  perdo,  perii.     atque  optume  738 

Eccum  ipsum.   ante   aedes.     VI.    Salue  multum,   mi   pater. 
SA.     Salue",  mea  gnata.     DO.    Ei,  Pe"rsa  me  pessum  dedit.       740 
VI.    Pater   hie  meus  est.     DO.    Hem,   quid?   pater?   perii   6ppido. 
Quid  ego  igitur  cesso  infelix  lamentarier 
Minas   sexaginta?     SA.    6go   pol   te   faciam,   scelus, 
Te   quoque  etiam  ipsum  ut   lamenteris.     DO.    6ccidi. 
SA.    Age  ambula  in  ius,  le"no.     DO.    Quid  me  in  ius  uocas?       745 
SA.    Illi[c]    apud  praetorem  dicam:    sed  ego  in  ius  uoco. 
DO.    Nonne   antestaris?     SA.    Tuan   ego   causa,   carnufex, 
Quoiquam  mortali  libero  auris  atteram, 
Qui  hie  cSmmercaris  ciuis  homines  liberos? 

DO.     Sine    dicam.      SA.     Nolo.       DO.    Audi.       SA.    Surdus  sum: 

ambula.  750 

Sequere  hac,  sceleste,  feles  uirginaria. 
Sequere   hac,   mea   gnata,  me   usque   ad   praetore*m.     VI.    Sequor. 

738  ff.  Ritschl  28  observed  that  the  movement  of  the 
play  after  the  close  of  IV.,  8  was  very  hurried,  and  other 
editors  have  agreed  with  him.  In  particular,  IV.,  9 
seems  to  have  suffered  from  shortening.  The  discovery 
of  the  pseudo-Persian  girl's  identity  is  made  far  too 
quickly  (11.  739-740),  and  the  question  of  Dordalus:  Hem, 
quid?  pater?  (1.  741)  is  absurd  after  11.  739-740.  Satu- 
rio, his  daughter,  and  Dordalus,  are  suddenly  dismissed 
from  the  stage,  and  we  hear  nothing  of  what  takes  place 
between  them  in  the  forum.  Then,  too,  we  are  puzzled 

27  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  p.  174. 

28  Ritschl,  Ed.    (1853),  Praef.,  p.  ix. 


40  EETKACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

by  the  fact  that  the  parasite,  whose  sole  object  in  under- 
taking the  deceit  of  the  leno  has  been  to  provide  himself 
with  a  dinner  (11.  140-147;  329  ff.),  does  not  appear  at 
the  banquet  in  Act  V.,  while  Dordalus,  who  left  to 
defend  himself  before  the  praetor  (1.  752),  re-enters  at 
1.  778.  The  difficulties  are  explained  if  we  suppose  that 
IV.,  9  is  the  shortened  form  of  a  scene  in  which  the  leno 
plead  for  mercy  and  finally,  by  the  offer  of  a  sum  of 
money,  induced  Saturio  to  drop  his  legal  proceedings, 
take  the  money  and  his  daughter,  and  go  home.29 

A  and  P  have  738-741  in  the  same  form.     Then  A  deest  to  the 
end  of  the  play. 

The  Persa  offers  comparatively  slight  evidence  for  the 
changes  of  the  Plautine  Revival.  There  are  a  few  in- 
stances of  parallel  versions— 11.  433-436,  442-443;  605- 
608,  609-610 ;  703,  704.  An  attempt  to  bring  the  scene 
to  a  close  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  confusion  in  the 
manuscripts  after  1.  666.  The  play  as  a  whole  is  notice- 
ably short,  and  the  dialogue  in  two  of  the  scenes  (11. 
440-448;  738-752)  is  so  hurried  and  disconnected  that 
we  are  justified  in  assuming  a  shortening  in  which  the 
original  version  was  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are 
a  few  places  (11.  722-734,  and  possibly  460-461),  where 
an  insertion  seems  to  have  been  made  in  order  to  prepare 
for  a  later  scene.30 


29  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  pp.  177  ff. 

30  In  addition  to  the  passages  discussed  in  detail,   the   following 
lines  have  been  suspected:    60,  240,  280-295,  453-454,  562,  673-682, 
694-699,  833-851. 

Of  these  lines,  A  is  missing  for  60,  240,  453-454,  833-851.  Both 
A  and  P  have  280-295  (except  that  P  transposes  293,  294),  562, 
673-682,  694-699. 

The  following  lines  show  minor  variations:  399,  485,  498,  500, 
515-516,  574,  597. 


PEESA  41 

The  indications  of  change  are  not  confined  to  the  Pala- 
tine manuscripts.  A  has  the  beginnings  of  the  two  short- 
ened scenes  (11.  440  ff. ;  738  ff.)  in  the  same  form  as  P, 
and  probably  contained  the  whole.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  three  passages  in  which  A  and  P  alike  show 
traces  of  retractatio,  but  A  has  preserved  a  larger  number 
of  the  suspicious  lines.  Far  from  showing  the  purer 
text,  therefore,  A  gives  all  the  later  versions  that  P  gives, 
and  has  some  of  them  in  fuller  form. 


CHAPTEK  II. 
POENULU8 

The  Poenulus  tells  the  story  of  two  sisters  in  the 
service  of  the  leno  Lycus,  who  gain  their  freedom  through 
Agorastocles,  the  lover  of  the  elder  girl,  and  his  slave  Mil- 
phio.  In  the  first  scene,  Milphio  evolves  a  scheme  which 
he  promises  will  give  Agorastocles  not  only  his  sweetheart, 
but  the  whole  household  of  the  leno  as  well.  The  vilicus 
of  Agorastocles,  who  happens  to  be  in  the  city,  and  who 
is  a  stranger  to  Lycus,  is  to  be  dressed  up  as  a  foreign 
soldier  and  sent  t6  the  leno  with  a  request  for  an  evening's 
pleasure.  Then  Agorastocles  is  to  appear  and  demand 
his  slave,  and,  upon  the  leno's  denial  of  all  knowledge 
of  the  slave,  Agorastocles  is  to  drag  him  off  to  court. 
This  plan  is  carried  out  with  the  help  of  advocati  from 
the  forum,  who  introduce  the  newcomer  to  Lycus  and 
witness  the  whole  proceeding.  But  Milphio,  the  author 
of  the  scheme,  disappears  from  the  action,  and  the  pro- 
posed law-suit  never  takes  place.  Instead,  Milphio  enters 
at  the  beginning  of  Act  IV.,  raging  against  the  leno  and 
threatening  his  destruction,  as  if  Acts  I.-III.  had  no 
existence.  He  learns  from  the  slave  of  Lycus  that  the 
sweetheart  of  Agorastocles  and  her  sister  are  really  free- 
born  Carthaginians,  and,  knowing  that  his  young  master 
is  also  Carthaginian  by  birth,  he  confidently  plans  their 
release.  Just  at  this  moment  the  Carthaginian  Hanno 
appears,  on  a  search  for  his  two  daughters  and  his  nephew, 
all  of  whom  were  stolen  away  as  children.  The  nephew 
is  discovered  to  be  Agorastocles,  the  adopted  son  of  Han- 
42 


POENULUS 


43 


no's  old  guest-friend.  Milphio  then  proposes  that  Hanno 
aid  in  outwitting  the  leno  and  obtaining  the  freedom 
of  the  two  girls  by  pretending  that  they  are  his  daughters. 
The  fiction  proves  to  be  only  too  true,  and  the  happy 
father  promises  the  hand  of  his  elder  daughter  to  her 
lover.  When  the  leno  returns,  desperate  over  the  ruin 
that  has  already  come  upon  him,  he  finds  three-fold 
vengeance  waiting  at  the  hands  of  Hanno,  Agorastocles, 
and  the  soldier  to  whom  he  had  promised  the  younger 
girl. 

Even  this  hasty  sketch  is  sufficient  to  show  the  break 
between  Act  III.  and  Act  IV.,  and  the  repetition  in  the 
two  plots  against  the  leno.  A  more  detailed  study  of 
the  play  brings  out  other  difficulties.  The  first  act  pre- 
sents the  two  girls  as  meretrices  of  the  ordinary  sort, 
who  are  already  familiar  with  their  calling  (cf.  especially 
11.  233-236 ;  265-270)  ;  in  the  last  act,  they  are  repre- 
sented as  entering  upon  their  profession  on  the  very  day 
that  the  play  opens  (11.  1139-1140),  and  their  conversation 
is  full  of  sentiments  befitting  their  noble  birth  (cf.  11. 
1185-1186;  1201-1204).  In  the  first  half  of  the  play, 
too,  they  have  no  prospect  of  freedom  aside  from  the 
lover  of  the  elder  sister  (11.  360-363) ;  in  the  second,  the 
prophecy  of  good  fortune  immediately  makes  them  hope 
for  assistance  from  their  parents  (1.  1208).  We  note, 
too,  that,  though  the  prologue  gives  the  scene  of  the  play 
as  Calydon  (11.  72,  94;  cf.  1057,  1181),  Milphio  pro- 
mises Adelphasium  that  she  shall  become  civis  Attica. 
(1.  372). 

It  is  almost  certain  that  the  Poenulus  combines  two 
different  plots,  one  covering  roughly  the  first  three  acts 
of  the  play,  and  the  other  the  last  two.  The  scene  of 
the  first  was  laid  in  Athens;  that  of  the  second  (the 


44  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


of  which  the  plot  is  given  in  the  prologue) 
in  Calydon.  The  two  originals  seems  to  have  had  as 
common  elements  two  sisters  in  the  service  of  a  leno, 
and  a  festival  of  Venus,  at  which  the  sisters  offered 
acceptable  sacrifices,  but  the  offerings  of  the  leno  were 
rejected.  The  two  plots  are  necessarily  bound  together 
to  some  extent,  especially  at  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  the  play,  but  their  general  outlines  can  still  be  recog- 
nized. The  first  presents  two  Athenian  meretrices,  with 
the  elder  of  whom  a  youth  is  in  love.  To  obtain  her 
freedom,  he  and  his  slave  play  a  trick  which  results  in 
a  law-suit  and  the  leno's  ruin.  In  the  KapxySdmos, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  girls  are  Carthaginians  of  noble 
birth,  who  are  to  enter  upon  their  calling  on  the  day 
that  the  play  begins.  Their  release  comes  about  through 
their  father,  who  arrives  in  Calydon  at  the  proper  mo- 
ment, finds  his  daughters,  and  discovers  his  nephew  in 
the  lover  of  the  older  girl. 

The  line  of  division  between  the  two  plots  in  the 
Poenulus  is  so  clear  that  it  attracted  attention  compara- 
tively early.1  Teuffel,2  noticing  the  distinctness  of  the 
two  plots  against  the  leno,  and  the  contradiction  about 
the  scene  of  the  play,  decided  :  "  Beim  Poenulus  lage 
die  Annahme  einer  Contamination  ziemlich  nahe,  wenn 
dadurch  etwas  gewonnen  ware."  But  Teuffel's  hint  was 
not  followed  up  for  fully  twenty  years.  Then  Reinhardt  3 
and  Francken  4  studied  the  composition  of  the  play  with 

1  G.  Langrehr,  De  Plauti  Poenulo,  Friedland,  1883,  p.  14,  says  that 
Rapp  was  the  first  to  suspect  contaminatio  in  the  Poenulus. 

2W.  Teuffel  in  Rhein.  Mus.  8  (1853),  pp.  35  ff.  (=8tud.  u.  Char2., 
pp.  337  ff.) 

8  L.  Reinhardt  in  Studemund's  Studien  auf  d.  Gebiete  d.  archai- 
schen  Lateins,  Vol.  I.  (Berlin,  1873),  pp.  109  ff. 

4C.  M.  Francken  in  Mnem.  4  (1876),  pp.  146-175. 


POENULTJS  45 

great  care.  The  analyses  which  they  made  have  been 
modified  and  corrected  in  detail  by  Langen,5  Leo,6  and 
Karsten,7  but  the  main  lines  of  their  division  still  remain 
unchanged. 


Earum   hie    adulescens    alteram   efflictim   per  it  96 

Suam  sfbi  cognatam  inprudens,  neque  s<(c>it  quae  si<e>t, 

Neque  earn  umquam  tetigit:   Ita  eum  leno  macerat: 

(Neque  qufcquam  cum  ea  fecit  etiamntim  stupri, 

Neque  duxit  umquam:  n6que  ille  uoluit  mfttere:)  100 

Quia  amare  cernit,  tangere  hominem  u6lt  bolo. 

99-100.  This  couplet,  which  gives  the  substance  of 
1.  98  in  a  little  fuller  form,  is  probably  to  be  set  down 
to  retractatio. 

A  deest  1-281. 


(Ehem,  pae'ne  oblitus  sum  relicuom  dicere.  118 

Ille  qui  adoptauit  hunc  pro  fili6  sibi 

Is  illi  Poeno,  huius  patri   |,  hosp6s  fuit.)  120 

118-120.  These  lines  may  have  been  added  to  explain 
a  little  more  fully  the  situation  indicated  in  1.  75  emit 
hospitalem  is  filium  inprudens  senex.  The  passage  is 
especially  disturbing  because  it  breaks  the  connection 
between  the  subject  of  the  next  sentence  (1.  121  is,  or 
1.  124  hie — cf.  below)  and  its  antecedent,  unquestionably 
the  Carthaginian  who  has  been  under  discussion  in  11. 
104-115. 

A  deest. 


6Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  pp.  181  ff. 

6  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  153  ff. 

7H.  J.  Karsten  in  Mnem.  29    (1901),  pp.  363-387. 


46  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Is  hodie  hue  ueniet  re"p[p]erietque  hie  filias  121 

Et  hunc  sui   fratris  f ilium,  utquidem  didici   ego. 

Ego  ibo,  ornabor:  u6s  oequo  animo  n6scite. 

(Hie  qui  hCdie  ueniet,  re"p[p]eriet  suas  filias 

Et  hunc  sui  fratris  filium.     dehinc  c6terum  125 

Quod  re"stat,  restant  ali<i>  qui  faciant  palam. 

Val6te:   adeste.     ibo:    alius  nunc  fieri  uolo.) 

Vale"te  atque  adiuuate  ut  uos  seru6t  Salus. 

121-128.  The  close  of  the  prologue  undoubtedly  con- 
tains two  versions.  There  is  almost  exact  verbal  repe- 
tition in  11.  121-122  and  124-125 ;  two  announcements 
are  made  of  the  speaker's  proposed  change  of  dress  (123 ; 
127)  ;  and  the  farewell  to  the  audience  is  given  in  two 
different  forms  (127;  128).  Seyffert8  is  probably  right 
in  arranging  the  two  versions:  (1)  11.  121-123,  128 ;  (2)  11. 
124-127.  Of  the  two,  the  second  is  probably  the  genuine. 
Alius  nunc  fieri  volo  (1.  127)  is  more  vivid  than  ornabor 
(1.  123),  and  the  collocation  restat,  restant  (1.  126)  is 
quite  in  the  style  of  Plautus. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text,  except 
that  1.  126  appears  after  1.  127. 
A  deest. 


AD.    Neg6ti  sibi  qui  uole"t  uim  par  are,  210 

Nauem   et  mulierem  haec  duo  comparato. 

Nam  ntillae  magis  res  duae"  plus  neg6ti 

Habe"nt,  forte  si  6cceperis  exornare, 

Neque  umquam  satis  hae  duae  res  ornantur, 

Neque  eis  ulla  ornandi  satis  satietas  est.  215 

214.  The  thought  of  11.  214,  215  is  exactly  the  same. 
The  phrase  duae  res  in  1.  214  is  an  awkward  repetition 
from  1.  212,  and  the  line  is  unmetrical.  In  line  215, 
on  the  contrary,  the  quibble  satis  satietas  sounds  Plautine. 
The  first  line  is  therefore  probably  due  to  a  later  hand. 

80.  Seyffert,  Studio,  Plautina,  Berlin,   1874,  p.   11. 


POENULUS  47 

I 

A  deest. 


Atque  ha^c  ut  loquor,  nunc  dom6  docta  dfco.  216 

Nam  n6s  usque  ab  aurora  ad  h6c  quod  dielst 

(Postquam  aurora  inluxit  numquam  concessauimus ) 

Ex  Industria  ambae  numquam  concessamus 

Lauari  aut  fricari  aut  terge"ri  aut  ornari.  220 

218.  Another  variant,  also  unskillful  metrically,  seems 
to  be  presented  by  1.  218.  This  line  repeats  11.  217,  219, 
and  was  probably  intended  to  take  their  place. 

A  deest. 


AD.    fnuidia    in    me    numquam    innatast    n4que    malitia,     me"a 

soror :         300 

Bono  me<(d>  esse  inge'nio  ornatam  quam  auro  multo  mauolo. 
(Atirum  id  fortuna  Inuenitur,   natura  ingenium  bonum: 
B6nam  ego  quam  beatam  me  esse  nlmio  dici  mauolo.) 
M^retricem  pud6rem  gerere  magis  decet  quam  ptirpuram. 
(Magisque  meretrice'm  pudorem  quam  aurum  gerere  c6ndecet.)   305 
Fulcrum  ornatum  turpes  mores  pe"ius  caeno  c6nlinunt: 
L6pidi  mores  turpem  ornatum   facile  factis   comprobant. 

800  ff.  Fond  as  Plautus  was  of  sententiae,  he  would 
hardly  have  made  Adelphasium  utter  the  whole  of  this 
speech  as  it  stands  in  our  text.  Nearly  every  line  in  it 
has  been  suspected  by  some  one  of  the  editors.  We  can, 
however,  be  sure  of  retractatio  only  in  1.  304,  which 
repeats  1.  305  almost  word  for  word,  omitting  the  neces- 
sary conjunction  -que,  and  substituting  decet  for  the  Plau- 
tine  verb  condecet.  The  second  version  seems  to  have 
been  composed  to  introduce  a  new  detail  (purpura)  into 
the  list  of  the  courtesan's  ornaments.9 

The  whole  passage  occurs  in  both  A  and  P,  but  A  has  the  order: 
303,  305,  304. 


'Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  pp.  338  f. 


48  RETBACTATIO    IN"    PLAUTUS 

Sic  enim  dicerSs,  sceleste:  huius  uoluptas,  te  opsecro,  387 

Huius  mel,  huius  cor,  huius  labellum,  hulus  lingua,  huius  sauium, 
Huius   delicia,   huius  salus  amoe'na,  huius  festiuitas, 

Hulus  colustra,  huius  dulciculus  caseus,  mastigia:  390a 

(Huius  cor,  huius  studium,  huius  sauium,  mastigia.)  390b 


The  terms  of  endearment  in  1.  390,  except  for 
studium,  merely  repeat  those  of  1.  388,  and  the  epithet 
mastigia  addressed  to  Milphio  is  taken  from  1.  390.  It  is 
possible  that  the  word  studium  was  a  new  bit  of  slang 
in  the  Revival  Age,  and  that  the  alternative  line  was 
composed  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  this  novelty. 

P  has  the  order:    389,  390%  390b. 

A  omits  390a  (a  genuine  verse),  but  writes  dulciculus  caseus 
above  savium  mastigia  of  390b,  showing  that  some  form  of  the 
line  must  have  stood  in  the  archetype  of  A. 


AG.  fta  me  di  ament,  tardo  amico  nil[i]  est  quicquam  inae"- 

quius,  504 

Prae'sertim  homini  amanti  qui  quicquld  agit  properat  6mnia.     505 

Slcut  ego  hos  duco  aduocatos,  homines  spissigradissumos, 

Tardiores  quam  corbitae  stint  in  tranquilld  mari. 

Atque  equidem  hercle  de"dita  opera  amlcos  fugitauf  senes: 

Sci[e]bam  aetati   tardiores,   m6tui  meo  amori  moram. 

N6quiquam  hos  proc6s  mihi  elegi  loripedis,  tardissumos.  510 

Quin  si  ituri  hodie  6stis,  ite  aut  ite  hinc  in  malam  crucem. 

Sicine  oportet  ire  amicos  h6mini  amanti  operam  datum? 

Nam  istequidem  gradtis  succretust  cribro  pollinario: 

Nisi  cum  pedicis  c6ndidicistis  is<t>oc  grassarl  gradu. 

ADV.  Hetis  tu,  quamquam  n6s  uidemur  tibi  plebeii  et  pau- 

peres.  515 

Si  nee  recte  dicis  nobis  diues  de  summ6  loco, 

Diuitem  audacte"r  solemus  mactare  infortunio. 

N6c  tibi  nos  obnixi[i]  sumus  istuc,  quid  tu  ames  aut  6deris. 

Quom  argentum  pro  capite  dedimus,  nostrum  dedimus,  non  tuom. 

Liberos  nos  e"sse  oportet:  n6s  te  nili  p^ndimus:  520 

N6  tuo  nos  am6ri  seruos  [tuos]  6sse  addictos  c^nseas. 

Liberos  homines  per  urbem  modico  magis  par  est  gradu 

ire:  seruile  e"sse  duco  festinantem  currere. 


POENULTJS  49 

Praesertim  in  re  populi  placida  atque  interfectis  hostibus 

Non  decet  tumultuari.     se"d  si  properabas  magis,  525 

Pridie  nos  te  aduocatos  htic  duxisse  opSrtuit. 

N6  tu  opinere,  haud  quisquam  hodie  n6strum  curret  pe"r  uias 

N6que  nos  populus  pr6  cerritis  Insectabit  lapidibus. 

AG.    At  si  ad  prandium  me  in  aedem  u6s  dixissem  dticere, 

VInceretis   c6ruom   cursu   uel   grallatorem   gradu.  530 

Nunc  uos  quia  mihi  aduocatos  dixi  et  testis  ducere, 

P6dagrosi  estis  ac  uicistis  cOcleam  tarditfidine. 

<ADV.>   An  uero  non  iusta  causast  quo<r>  curratur  c61eriter, 

[ADV.]    Vbi  bibas,  edds  de  alieno  quantum  uelis  usque  adfatim, 

Qu6d  tu  inuitus  numquam  reddas  domino,  de  qu<o>io  ^deris?     535 

S6d  tamen  cum  eo  cum  quiqui  quamquam  sumus  paup6rculi, 

6st  domi  quod  edimus:   ne  nos  tarn  contemptim  c6nteras. 

Qulcquid  est  pauxlllulum  illuc  nostrum  t  id  omne  intus  est : 

Ne^ue  nos  quemquam  flagitamus  neVjue  nos  quisquam  flagitat. 

Tua  causa  nemo  nostrorumst  su6s  rupturus   ramites.  540 

AG.    NImis  iracundi  6stis:   equidem  haec  uobis  dixi  p6r  iocum. 

ADV.    P6r  iocum  itidem  dicta [m]    habeto,  quae  nos  tibi  respon- 

dimus. 

AG.    6bsecro  hercle  operam  celocem  hanc  mihi,  ne  corbitam  date. 
Attrepidate  saltern:  nam  uos  adproperare  baud  p6stulo. 
ADV.    Sfquid  tu  placide  6tioseque  agere  uis,  operam  damus:     545 
Si  properas,  curs6res  meliust  te  aduocatos  ducere. 
AG.    Scltis,  rem  narraui  uobis,  quod  uostra  opera  mi  6pus  siet, 
De"  lenone  hoc  qul  me  amantem  ludificatur  tarn  diu: 
Ef  paratae  ut  sint  insidiae  de  atiro  et  de  seru6  meo. 
ADV.    6mnia  istaec  scimus  iam  nos,  si  hi  spectatores  sciant.     550 
H6runc  hi[n]c  nunc  causa  haec  agitur  sp6ctatorum  fabula: 
H6s  te  satius  e"st  docere  ut,  quando  agas,  quid  aga[n]s  sciant. 
N6s  tu  ne  curassis:  scimus  rem  6mnem,  quippe  omn6s  simul 
Dldicimus  tecum  una,  ut  respond^re  possimus  tibi. 
AG.    fta     profectost.       s£d    agite     igitur,     ut    sciam    uos     sclre, 

rem  555 

Expedite  et  mihi  quae  uobis  dtidum  dixi  dlcite. 
ADV.    ftane  temptas   an   sciamus?  n6n  meminisse  n6s    [t]ratu's, 
Quo  modo  trec6ntos  Philippos  C6llabisco  ullico 
D^deris,  quos  def6rret  hue  ad  le"nonem  inimicum  tuom, 
isque    se    ut    adsimularet    peregrinum     [esse]     aliunde    ex    alio 

oppido,       560 

tybi  is  detulerit,  tu  e6  quaesitum  s6ruom  aduent<ar>6s  tuom 
Qtim  pecunia.     AG.   Meministis  m6moriter:   seruastis  me. 


50  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

ADV.    file   negabit:    Mflphionem   quae"ri  censeblt   tuom 

id  duplicabit  6mne  furtum:   16no  addicetfir  tibi. 

Ad  earn  rem  nos  e"sse  <t>estis  ufs  tibi.     <AG.>    Tene"tis  rem.     565 

ADV.    Vlx  quidem  hercle  |  —  fta  pauxillast  —  dfgitulis  primoribus. 

AG.     (Hoc    cito    et    cursimst    agendum,     propera    iam    quantum 

potest. 

ADV.    Be"ne  uale   igitur.     te   aduocatos   melius<t>  celeris   ducere: 
Tardi  sumus  nos.     AG.    6ptume  itis,  pessume  hercle  dicitis. 
Qufn  etiam  deciderint  uobis  fe"mina  |   in  talos  uelim.  570 

ADV.    At  edepol   nos  tfbi    |    in   lumbos   Hnguam   atque   oculos   In 

solum. 

AG.    Hela,  hau  uostrumst  iracundos  e"sse  quod  dixi  ioco. 
ADV.    Nee  tuoni  quidemst  amicis  pe"r  iocum  iniust6  loqui. 
AG.     Mittite    istaec.       quid    uelim    uos,    scftis.      ADV.     Cailemus 

probe: 
Le"nonem  ut  periurum  perdas,  fd  studes.     AG.    Ten^tis  rem.)     575 

540  ff.  The  long  tedious  scene  between  Agorastocles 
and  the  advocati  was  apparently  shortened  for  later  pro- 
ductions. The  beginning  of  the  scene  (11.  504-542)  and 
11.  567-573  show  exactly  the  same  development  of  thought. 
In  both,  Agorastocles  rebukes  the  old  gentlemen  for  their 
slowness,  and  they  resent  the  reproof ;  then  he  apologizes, 
saying  that  his  words  were  meant  only  in  fun.  The  plan 
against  the  leno  which  is  reviewed  at  length  in  11.  547-566 
is  summarized  in  11.  574-575,  though,  as  Goetz  10  observed, 
the  second  version  would  be  incomprehensible  if  we  had 
not  the  first  as  well.  Moreover,  a  third  version  of  the 
beginning  of  the  scene  is  probably  preserved  in  11.  543- 
546. n  Here  again  we  have  the  remonstrance  of  Agor- 

10  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6    (1876),  p.  269. 

11  Goetz  (Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6,  p.  254),  noting  the  inappropriate- 
ness  of  these  verses  in  their  present  position,  made   them   precede 
11.    541-542.     Leo    (Plant.   Forsch.,    p.    161,    note)    thought   them    a 
part   of   the    same   shortened   version   that   we   find    in    11.    567-575. 
Kellermann    (Comm.  phil.  Jen.  7,  p.   134)    agreed  with  Goetz  that 
11.  543-546  and  567-575  could  not  belong  to  the  same  recension. 


POENULUS 


astocles  and  the  reply  of  the  advocati  (cf.  11.  504-540 ; 
567-571).  The  parallelism  is  particularly  close  between 
507  (corbitae)  and  543  (corbitam) ;  between  521-523, 
.546,  and  568;  between  541-542  and  572-573;  between 
565  (tenetis  rem)  and  575  (tenetis  rem).  There  seem 
therefore  to  have  been  three  versions  of  the  scene:  (1) 
the  Plautine  version,  11.  504-542;  547-566;  (2)  11.  567- 
575;  and  (3)  11.  543-546,  probably  followed  by  11.  547- 
.566.21 

P  has  the  passage  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 

A  deest  501-571  (=71  11.)  Two  sheets  of  A  are  missing 
(=76  11.).  If  we  allow  two  lines  for  the  scene-heading  of  III.,  1, 
and  assume  that  a  few  of  the  long  verses  were  run  over,  we  find 
that  the  whole  passage  could  very  well  have  been  contained  in  A. 
But  in  any  case,  the  fact  that  A  preserves  572  ff.  in  the  same 
form  as  P,  would  argue  that  it  had  the  rest  of  the  passage 
as  well. 


ADV.    Aetoli  ciues  t6  salutamus,  Lyce:  621 

Quamquam  hanc  salutem  fe"rimus  inuiti  tibi. 

[Et  quamquam  bene  uolumus  leniter  lenonibus.]  622b 

LY.    Fortunati  omnes  sltis:  quod  certo  scio 

Nee  fore  nee  Fortunam  id  situram  fferi. 

ADV.    Istic  est  thensaurus  stultis  in  lingua  situs,  625 

Vt  quaestui   habeant  male  loqui   melioribus. 

<LY.>    Viam  qui  nescit  qua  deueniat  ad  mare, 

Eum  oportet   amnem  quae"rere  comite'm    sibi. 

Ego  male  loquendi  uobis  nesciul  uiam: 

Nunc  uos  mihi  amnes  6stis:  uos  certumst  sequi.  630 

Si  b6ne  dicetis,  uostra  ripa  uos  sequar: 

Si  male  dicetis,  uostro  gradiar  Ifmite. 

13  Langrehr,  De  Plauti  Poenulo,  p.  19,  suspected  11.  523,  567,  728, 
733  (to  which  he  should  probably  have  added  1.  730)  because 
the  advocati,  for  whom  Plautus  regularly  uses  the  plural,  speak 
or  are  addressed  in  the  singular  in  these  lines.  Of  the  suspected 
verses,  1.  567  is  probably  not  by  Plautus;  the  rest  occur  in  passages 
which  are  otherwise  free  from  suspicion. 


52  EETEACTATIO    U*T    PLAUTTJS 

ADV.    Mal6  bene  facere  tantumdemst  perlculum 

Quantum  bono  male  facere.    'LY.    Qui[d]   uer6?   ADV.    Scies. 

Malo  siquid  'bene  facias,  id  beneficium  interit:  635 

Bon6  siquid  male  facias,  aetatem  6xpetit. 

<LY.>    Face"te  dictum.     se"d  quid  istuc  ad  me  attinet? 

<ADV.>    Quia  n6s  honoris  tui  causa  ad  te  u^nimus, 

Quamquam  bene  uolumus  Igniter   lenonibus. 


This  verse  is  the  same  as  1.  639,  except  that 
1.  622b  begins  et  quamquam,  and  1.  639  quamquam  alone. 
Lindsay  13  is  probably  right  in  thinking  that  the  repe- 
tition indicates  shortening.  The  actors  of  the  Kevival 
could  easily  pass  from  1.  622  to  1.  639,  and  thence  to 
the  end  of  the  scene. 

A  deest  604-634. 


LY.    Sed  haec  latrocinantur  quae  ego  dixi  6mnia.  704 

CO.    Quid   ita?     LY.    Quia  aurum  pdscunt   praesentarium.        705 

CO.    Quin  h6rcle  accipere  tti  non  mauis  quam  6go  dare. 

<ADV.>    Quid,  si  6uocemus  hue  foras  Agorastoclem, 

Vt  ipsus  testis  sit  sibi  certlssumus? 

Heus  tu,  qui  furem  captas,  egredere  6cius, 

Vt  tute  inspectes  aurum  lenonf  dare.  710 

AGORASTOCLES.  ADVOCATI.  COLLABISCVS. 

ADVLESCENS  VILICVS 

LYCVS 
LENO 

AG.    Quid  e"st?  quid  uoltis,  tgstes?    ADV.    Specta  ad  d6xteram: 

Tuos  s6ruos  aurum  |  ipsi  lenoni  dabit. 

CO.   Age  accipe  hoc  sis:  helc  sunt  numerati  aurei 

Trec6nti  nummi  qui  uocantur  Philipp<e>i. 

Hinc  m.6  procura:    pr6pere  hosce  apsumi   uolo.  715. 

LY.    Edep61  fecisti  pr6digum  promum  tibi. 

Age   eamus    intro.     CO.    T6    sequor.     LY.    Age    age    ambula: 

Ibi  quae  relicua  alia  fabulabimur. 

"Lindsay,  Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


POENULUS  53 

CO.    Eade"m  narrabo   tlbi    res   Spartiaticas. 

LY.    Quin    s6quere    me    intro.     CO.    Due    me    intro:     addictum 

tenes.          720 

AG.    Quid  nunc  mihi  auctores  6stis?    ADV.    Vt  frugl  sies. 
AG.    Quid,  si  animus  esse  n6n  sinit?     ADV.    Esto  ut  sinit. 
AG.   Vidlstis,   leno  quom  aurum  accepit?     ADV-.    Vidimus. 
AG.    Eum  uos  meum  esse  se"ruom  scitis?    ADV.    Scf<ui>mus. 
AG.    Rem   aduorsus  populi   t  saepe  leges?    ADV.    Sciuimus.     725 
AG.    Em  istae"c  uolo  ergo  uos    commeminisse  6mnia. 
Mox  quom  ad  praetorem  |  usus  ueniet.     ADV.    Me'minimus. 
AG.    Quid,  si  recenti  re  a6dis  pultem?    ADV.    Ce"nseo. 
AG.    Si  pultem,  non  recludet?     ADV.    Panem  frangito. 
AG.    Si  exierit  leno,  c6nsen[t]   hominem  int^rrogem,  730 

Meus  se"ruas   [si]   ad  eum  u6neritne?    ADV.    Qulppini? 

706  ff.  The  repetitions  in  the  manuscripts  at  the  close 
of  III.,  3  seem  to  indicate  a  shortening  of  the  prolix 
scene  that  follows.  After  Collabiscus  had  agreed  to  pay 
Lycus  the  sum  demanded  for  an  evening's  entertainment, 
there  was  no  reason  for  delay ;  the  money  could  be  handed 
over  at  once,  and  then  Agorastocles  could  appear  and 
demand  his  slave,  in  accordance  with  the  prearranged 
plan.  It  was  apparently  with  the  intention  of  cutting 
out  the  intervening  dialogue  that  some  manager  adscribed 
11.  720,  730  at  the  close  of  III.,  3.  But  if,  as  Leo14 
and  Lindsay  15  think,  1.  720  followed  directly  upon  1.  706, 
and  1.  730  in  turn  upon  1.  720,  Agorastocles  must  have 
appeared  upon  the  stage  without  any  summons  or  any 
notice  of  his  coming.  Some  announcement  seems  neces- 
sary, and  the  fact  that  1.  720  appears  in  A  one  line 
later  than  in  P  perhaps  indicates  that  it  was  intended 
to  be  spoken  after  the  summons  of  Agorastocles.  (11. 
707-710). 

"Leo,  Plant.  Farsch.,  pp.  7  f. 
18  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  pp.  43  f. 


54  RETRACTATIO    I!*    PLAUTTJS 

P  has  the  order:  706,  720  (in  the  unmetrical  form  Quin  sequerc 
me  introf  Duo  me  ergo  intro.  Addictum  tenes.) ,  707  if.,  repeating 
720  in  metrical  form  in  the  proper  place. 

A  has  the  order:  706,  707,  720  (in  the  same  form  as  P,  except 
that  it  omits  addictum  tenes),  730,  (with  the  reading  quid 
turn?  hominem  interrogemf) ,  708.  Then  the  sheet  which  must  have 
contained  709-745  is  missing  in  A.  The  38  lines  on  the  sheet  would 
not  give  room  for  these  37  verses  and  a  two-line  scene-heading; 
but  it  is  possible  that  the  scene-heading  for  III.,  4  took  up  only 
one  line  in  A,16  as  the  heading  for  III.,  5  actually  does.  At  any 
rate  A,  in  inserting  730  before  708,  shows  more  evidence  of  change 
than  P. 


CO.    Absc6dam  hinc  intro.     AG.  Factum  a  uobis  c6miter.  805 

Bonam  dedistis,  aduocati,  operam  mihi. 

Cras  mfine,  quaeso,  in  c6mitio  estote  6buiam. 

Tu  s6quere  me  intro.     uos  ualete.     ADV.    Et  tu  uale. 

805-808.  The  command  of  Agorastocles  to  Collabiscus 
in  1.  808  (tu  sequere  me  intro)  is  impossible  after  Col- 
labiscus has  announced  in  1.  805  abscedam  hinc  intro. 
Langen 17  is  probably  right  in  thinking  that  a  later 
version  substituted  1.  805  for  11.  806-808,  in  order  to 
shorten  the  scene.  He  observes  that  the  vocative  advocati 
comes  in  much  more  naturally  if  1.  805  is  omitted,  and 
that  the  salutation  valete  .  .  .  vale  (1.  808)  forms  a 
suitable  close  for  the  dialogue. 

A  deest  783-849. 


MI.  fllic  hinc  abiit.  dei  immortales  meum  erum  seruatum 

uolunt  917 

6t  hunc  disperditum  lenonem:   t&ntum  eum  instat  e"xiti. 

Satine,  prius  quam  unumst  iniectum  telum,  iam  instat  alterum? 

fbo  intro:  haec  ut  m6o  ero  memorem:  nam  hue  si  ante  aedes 

e"uocem,  920 

16  This   is   evidently   the   assumption   of   Seyffert.     Cf.   Berl.    Phil. 
Woch.  16    (1896),  col.  253,  note  3. 

17  Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  342. 


POENULUS  55 

Quae  audiuistis  m6do,  mine  si  eadem  hfc  iterum  iterem,  inscltiast. 
firo  uni  potius  fntus  ero  odio  quam  hie  sim  uobis  6mnibus. 
Dei  fminortales,  quanta  turba,  quanta  aduenit  calamitas 
Hodie  ad  hunc   lenonem.     sed  ego  mine  est  quoin  me  cCmmoror. 
fta  negotiuni  institutumst :    non   datur  cessatio:  925 

Nam  et  hoc   doete  consulendum,  quod  modo  concre'ditumst, 
I3t  illud  autem  inseruiendumst  c6nsilium   uernaculum. 
Remor<a>  si  sit,  qui  malam  rem  mihi  det,  merito  feeerit. 
Munc  intro  ibo:   dum  e"rus  adueniat  a  foro,  opperiar  domi. 

917-929.  The  close  of  the  scene  undoubtedly  shows 
two  parallel  versions.  There  is  very  close  correspondence 
between  917-918  and  923-924  (note  especially  the  repe- 
tition of  del  immortales)  ;  between  920  ibo  intro  and  929 
nunc  intro  ibo.  But  1.  920  implies  that  Agorastocles 
is  in  the  house,  while  1.  929  states  that  he  is  to  return 
a  foro.  We  must  therefore  recognize  two  versions:  (1) 
11.  917-922;  and  (2)  11.  923-929.  Evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  former  version  is  found  in  the  jingle 
ero  .  .  .ero  in  the  last  line ;  18  and  this  version  agrees 
with  1.  808  (which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  probably 
genuine)  in  representing  Agorastocles  as  inside  the  house. 

Both  A  and  P  give  the  entire  passage. 


Ythalonim  ualon  uth  sicorathisyma  comsyth  930 

Chym   lachunythmumys   thral   mycthi   baruimy   sehi 

Liphocanethythby  nuthi  ad  edynbynui 

Bymarob   syllohomaloni   murbymy   syrthoho 

Byth  lym  mothyn  noctothu  ulechanti  clamas  chon 

Yssid  dobrim  thyfel  yth  chil  ys  chon  chem  liful  935 

Yth  binim  ysdybur  thinnochot  nu  agorastocles 

Ythemaneth   ihychir   saelichot   sith   naso 

Bynny  idchil   liichilygubulim   lasibit  thim 

Bodialytherayn  nynnurs  lymmon  choth  lusim 


18  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  55. 


56  BETKACTATIO    IN    PLATTTUS 

Ythaloniimialoniutlisicoratliiistliymhimihymacoinsytli 

Combaepumamitalmetlotiambeat 

lulecantheconaalonimbalumbar  #  dechor 

Bats*  *  *  *hunesobinesubicsillimbalim 

Easeantidamossonalemuedubertefet 

Donobun*huneccilthumucommucroluful  945 

Altaninjauosduberithemhuarcharistolem 

Sittesedanecnasotersalielicot 

Alemusdubertimurmucopsuistiti 

Aoccaaneclictorbodesiussilimlimmimcolus. 


A  has  only  one  version  of  the  Carthaginian 
passage;  P  gives  two.  Lindsay19  regards  11.  930-939 
as  retractatio;  but  it  is  hard  to  imagine  any  stage-mana- 
ger, no  matter  how  industrious,  remodeling  a  speech  in 
a  foreign  tongue,  or  calling  in  a  professor  of  Semitics 
to  correct  the  grammar.  It  is  much  more  likely,  there- 
fore, that  the  second  version  is  the  work  of  a  later 
grammarian. 

A  omits  930-939. 


HA.  O  ml  popularis,  salue.     AG.  Et  tu  edepol,  quisquis  es:      1039 

Et  siquid  opus  est,  quae"so,  die  atque  Impera  1040 

Popularitatis  causa.     HA.  Habeo  gratiam: 

Verum  6go  hie  hospitium   |   habeo:   Antidamae  f ilium 

Quaer6 — oommostra,  si  nouisti  —  Agorastoclem. 

(Sed  ecquem  adulescentem  tu  hie  nouisti  Agorastoclem? 

AG.  Siquidem   Antidama[t]i   quae*ris   adoptaticium,  1045 

Ego  sum  Ipsus,  quern  tu  qua^ris.     HA.  Hem,  quid  ego  audio? 

AG.    Antidamae  gnatum  me  e"sse.     HA.  Si  itast,  t6sseram 

Conf6rre  si  uis  h6spitalem,  eccam  dttuli. 

AG.  Agedum,  hue  ostende.     est  par  probe,  <q>uam  habe6  domi.) 

HA.  0  mi  h6spes,  ®alue  multum.     nam  mihi  tuos  pater  1050 

Patritus  ergo  |  hospes  Antidamas  fuit. 

Haec  mihi  hospitalis  tessera  cum   ill6  fuit. 

<AG.>   Ergo    hie   apud   me   hospitium    tibi    praebe"bitur. 

19  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  44. 


57 


10J+2  ff.  This  passage  has  long  been  considered  one 
of  the  most  certain  examples  of  retractatio  in  Plautus, 
but  scholars  are  by  no  means  agreed  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  dittography.  There  are  two  inquiries  about  Agor- 
astocles  (1042-1043;  1044),  each  introduced  by  an  ad- 
ver^ative  particle  (verum,  sed),  and  two  presentations  of 
the  hospitalis  tessera  (1047-1049;  1052).  The  saluta- 
tion in  11.  1050-1051  is  concerned  with  the  identity  of 
Agorastocles  as  adopted  son  of  Antidama,  Hanno's  ances- 
tral guest-friend  (cf.  11.  1042-1043),  and  the  tessera 
(1.  1052)  is  brought  in  almost  as  an  afterthought. 
Seyffert's  20  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  on  the  whole 
the  most  satisfactory.  He  finds  two  parallel  versions: 

(1)  11.  1042-1043,  followed  by  a  reply  of  Agorastocles, 
similar  to  that  in  1.   1046,  and  then  by  11.   1050-1053; 

(2)  11.   1044-1049,  followed  by  1.   1053.     Each  version 
begins  with   an  inquiry   about  Agorastocles   and   a   dis- 
closure of  the  young  man's   identity;  but   in  the  first 
the   recognition  rests   upon  a   simple  statement,   in  the 
second   there   is   a   careful   examination   of   the   tessera. 
If  Seyffert  21  and  Langrehr  22  are  right  in  thinking  Anti- 
damas  (1.  1051)   an  un-Plautine  form,3  the  second  ver- 
sion is  the  genuine. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  has  1041,  1044-1048,  1042-1043,  1053,  1049-1053   (i.  e.,  A  trans- 
poses the  couplet  1042-1043,  and  repeats  1053). 


Seyffert,  Stud.  Plant.,  pp.  11  f. 


20 

^Seyffert,  Stud.  Plaut.,  p.  12. 


23  Langrehr,  De  Plwiti  Poen.,  p.  21. 

23  The  same  form  occurs  in  1.  955.     The  final  -s  is  in  both  cases 
necessitated  by  the  meter. 


58  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

HA.  Tu  abdfic  hosc<e>  intro  et  una  nutric6m  simul  1147 

lube  hanc  abire  hinc  ad  te.     AG.  Fac  quod  imperat. 

MI.    Sed  quis  illas  tibi  monstrabit?     AG.    Ego  doetfssume. 

MI.  Abeo  fgitur.     AG.  Facias  modo  quam  memores  mauelim.    1150 

Patruo  aduenienti  c6na  curetur  uolo. 

MI.  Lachanam  uos,  quos  e"go  iam  detrudam  ad  molas, 

Inde  p6rro  ad  puteum  atque  ad  robustum  c6dicem. 

Ego  faxo  hospitium  hoc  Igniter  laudabitis. 

AG.  Audln  tu,  patrue?  dico,  ne  dictum  neges.  1155 

Tuam  mihi  maiorem  flliam  despondeas. 

HA.    Pactam  rem  habeto.     AG.    Spondesne  igitur?     HA.    Sp6ndeo. 

<AG.>  Mi  patrue,  salue:  nam  nunc  es  plang  meus. 

Nune  de"mum  ego  cum  ilia  fabulabor  libere. 

Nunc,  patrue,  si  uis  tuas  uidere  filias,  1160 

Me  sequere.     HA.    Iam  dudum  equidem  cupio  et  te"  sequor. 

(Quid,  si  eamus  illis  obuiam?     AG.  At  ne  int6r  uias 

Praet6rbitamus  m6tuo.     HA.  Magne  luppiter, 

Restltue  certas  mihi  ex  incertis  ntinc  opes. 

AG.  tEgo  quidem  meos  amores  me"cum  confid6  fore.) 

Sed  eccas  uideo  ipsas.     HA.    Ha6cine  meae  sunt  ffliae?  1166 

Quantae  6  quantillis  iam  sunt  factae.     MI.        Scln,  quid  est? 

Thraeca6   sunt  *  *  *  *  onem  sustolli  solent. 

(Opinofr]   hercle  hodie  qu6d  ego  dixi  p6r  iocum, 

Id  e"uenturum  esse  6t  seuerum  et  se"rium,  1170 

Vt  haec  inueniantur  hodie  esse  huius  filiae. 

<AG.>  Pol  isttic  quidem  iam  c6rtumst.  tu  istos,  Mllphio, 

Abduce  intro:   nos  hasce  hie  pmestolabimur. ) 

1162  ff.  There  are  traces  of  alteration  at  the  close 
of  this  scene.  In  11.  1160-1161  Agorastocles  bids  Hanno 
follow  him  if  he  wishes  to  see  his  daughters.  In  11. 
1162-1163  Hanno  proposes,  as  if  the  plan  were  quite  new, 
that  they  go  to  meet  the  girls,  and  Agorastocles  objects 
that  they  may  miss  them  on  the  way.  At  1.  1166  the 
two  girls  are  seen  approaching,  and  at  1.  1173  Agoras- 
tocles and  Hanno  announce  that  they  will  wait  for  them. 
Milphio  has  been  commanded  to  enter  the  house  at  11. 
1147-1148,  and  has  apparently  done  so  (cf.  1.  1150  cibeo; 
1.  1154)  ;  to  our  surprise  we  find  him  on  the  stage  at 


59 


11.  1167  n%  making  a  belated  comment  on  the  identity 
of  the  two  girls,  and  receiving  the  same  directions  that 
had  been  given  to  him  before.  There  are  certainly  two 
versions  of  the  command  to  Milphio  and  of  the  proposal 
to  look  for  the  girls  ;  and  it  is  possible  that  the  whole 
passage  (1  162-1173)  represents  an  alternative  ending  for 
the  scene,  intended  to  follow  1.  1146. 

A  and  P  give  the  scene  in  the  same  form. 


<AG.>    Quaeso,  qul  lubet  tarn  diti  tenere  collum?     1266 
Omitte  saltern  tu  altera:  nolo  e"go  istuc  —  <AD.>    Enicas  me. 
<AG.>  Prius  quam  te  mihi  desponderit.     AD.   [0]   Mitto?  sperate, 

salue. 
<HA.>  Condamus  .alter  alterum  ergo  in  neYuom  bracchialem. 

1261-1268.  There  is  much  confusion  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  play  about  the  betrothal  of  Agorastocles  and  Adel- 
phasium.  It  takes  place  in  full  form  at  11.  1155-1157 
(cf.  Aul.  255-256;  Trm.  571-573),  and  the  promise  made 
at  that  time  is  recalled  to  Hanno's  mind  at  11.  1278-1279. 
But  at  1.  1268  and  again  at  1.  1357  Agorastocles  speaks 
as  if  the  betrothal  were  still  to  take  place.  This  last 
line,  as  we  shall  see,  probably  belongs  to  the  latest  version 
of  the  play,  and  it  is  possible  that  11.  1267-1268,  which 
are  awkwardly  introduced  at  best,  also  represent  a  later 
addition.  If  the  close  of  V.,  3  was  changed  by  the 
substitution  of  11.  1162-1173  for  1147-1161  (cf.  above), 
the  betrothal  was  omitted  in  the  later  performance  of 
the  play,  and  the  changes  in  the  other  scenes  may  have 
been  made  to  agree  with  this. 

A  has  the  passage  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
P  has  the  order   1266,  1268,   1267. 


60  RETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

AG.    Num  tibi,  adulescens,  malae  aut  dentes  pruriunt,  1315 

Qui  huic  6s  molestus,  an  malam  rem  quae"ritas? 

ANTA.    t  Qur  non  adhibuisti,  dflm  istaec  loquere,  tympanum? 

Nam  te  cinaedum  esse  arbitror  magis  quam  uirum. 

AG.    Scin  quam  cinaedus  sum?  ite  istinc,  serui,  foras, 

Ecf^rte  fustis.     ANTA.    Heus  tu,  siquid  per  iocum  1320 

Dixi,   nolito  in  s6rium  conu6rtere. 

ANTE.    Qui[d]   tibi  lubidos<t>,  6psecro,  Antamo6nides, 

Loqui  Inclementer  ndstro  cognate  6t  patri? 

Nam  hie  n6ster  pater  est:   hie  nos  cognoult  mode 

Et  hunc  sui  fratris  f ilium.    ANTA.    Ita  me  luppiter  1325 

Bene  am6t,  bene  factum.    gaudeo  et  uolup  est  mihi, 

Siquid  lenoni  |  6ptigit  magnl  mail, 

Quomque  6  uirtute  u6bis  fortuna  optigit. 

ANTE.    Credlbile  ecastor  dicit:   crede  huic,  ml  pater. 

HA.    Credo.    AG.    1st  ego  credo.    s£d  eccum  lenonem  dptume: 

(Credo.   AG.  At  ego  credo  |.   6depol  hie  uenit  c6mmodua.)     1331 

Bonum  uirum  eccum  uideo:  se  recipit  domum. 

HA.    (Quis  hie  est?    AG.    Vtrumuis  est,  <u>el  leno  <u61>  XiJ/cos. 

In  se-ruitute  hie  filias  habuit  tuas,  1334 

Et  mi  [hie]  atiri  fur  est.     HA.    Bellum  hominem,  quern  n6ueris.) 

AG.    Rapiamus  in  ius.      HA.    Minume.      AG.    Quapropt6r?    HA. 

Quia 
Iniuriarum  mtilto  induci  satius  est. 


LYCVS.  AGORASTOCLES.  HANNO. 

LENO  ADVLESCENS  POENVS 

ANTAMOENIDES 
MILES 

LY.    Decipitur  nemo  m6a  quidem  sentgntia, 

Qui  suis  amicis  narrat  recte  r6s  suas: 

Nam  omnibus  amicis  meis  idem  unum  c6nuenit,  1340 

Vt  m6  suspendam,  ne  addicar  Agorastocli. 

AG.    Leno,  eamus  in  ius.     LY.    6psecro  te,  Agorastocles, 

Susp6ndere  ut  me  liceat.     HA.    In  ius  te"  uoco. 

LY.    Quid  tibi  mecum  autem?     HA.    Quia  |  hasce  aio  liberas 

Ing6nuasque  esse  filias  ambas  meas.  1345 

Eae  stint  surruptae  cum  nutrice  paruolae. 

LY.    lam  pridem  equidem  istuc  sciui  et  miratus  fui 

Neminem  venire  qui  istas  adserere"t  manu. 


POENULUS  61 

Meaequid&n  profecto  n6n  sunt.    ANTA.  Leno,   in  itis  eas. 
LY.    De  prandio  tu  dfcis:  debetur,  dabo.  1350 

AG.    Duplum  pro  furto  mi  6pus  est.     LY.    Sume  hinc  quidlubet. 
HA.    Et  mlhi  suppliciis  mflltis.     LY.    Sume  hinc  quidlubet. 
(ANTA.    Et  mlhi  quidem  min[im]a[m]  argenti.     LY.    Sume  hinc 

quidlubet. 

Collo   rem  soluam  iam  6mnibus  quasi  baiolus. 
AG.      Numquld  recusas  c6ntra  me?     LY.    Haud  uerbtim  quidem. 
AG.    Ite  igitur  intro,  mtilieres.     sed,  patrue  mi,  1356 

Tuam,  tit  dixisti,  mihi  desponde  flliam. 
HA.    Haud   aliter  ausim.     ANTA.    B6ne   uale.     AG.    Et  tu   bene 

uale. ) 

ANTA.   'Leno,  arrabonem  hoc  pr6  mina  mecum  fero. 
LY.    Perii     h6rcle.     AG.    Immo     haud    mult6     post,     si     in     ius 

u6neris.        1360 

LY.    Quin  e"gomet  tibi  me  addico:   quid  praet6re  opust? 
Verum  6bsecro  te  ut  llceat  simplum  sdluere, 
Trece"ntos  Philippos:    cr^do,   conradl  potest. 
Cras  atictionem  faciam.     AG.    Tantisp6r  quidem 
Vt  sis  apud  me  Hgnea  in  cust6dia.  1365 

LY.    Fiat.    AG.    Sequere  intro,  patrue  mi,  ut  hunc  festum  diem 
Habeamus  hilare[m]   huitis  malo  et  nostr6  bono. 
Multum  ualete.     multa  uerba  f6cimus: 
Malum  postremo  omne  ad  lenonem  reccidit. 
Nunc,  quod  postremumst  condimentum  fabulae, 
Si  placuit,  plausum  p6stulat  comoe<lia.  1371 


AGORASTOCLES.  LYCVS.  HANNO. 

ADVLESCENS  LENO  POENVS 

ANTAMOENIDES 
MILES 

ANTERASTYLIS.          ADELPHASIVM. 
MERETRIOES  II 

AG.    Quam  re"m  agis,  miles?  qui  lubet  patru6  meo 

Loqui  inclementer?  n6  mirere  mulieres 

Quod  etim  sequntur:   modo  cognouit  fflias 

Suas  6sse  hasce  ambas.     LY.    He"m,  quod  uerbum  auris  meas     1375 

Tetigit?  nunc  perii.     ANTA.    Vnde  haec  perierunt  domo? 

AG.    Oarthaginienses  sunt.     LY.    At  ego  sum  pe"rditus. 


62  RETRACT ATIO  IIS"  PLAUTUS 

Illflc  ego  metuei  se"mper,  ne  cogn6sceret 
Eas  aliquis:   quod  nunc  factumst.     uae  miser6  mihi. 
Periere,  opinor,  duodeuiginti  minae  1380 

Qui  hasce  e"mi.     AG.    Et  tute  Ipse  peri<i>sti,  Lyce. 
HA.    Quis  hie  6st?     AG.    Vtrumuis  6st.   [no]uel  leno  u61    Xikos. 
In  se"ruitute   hie  filias  habuit  tuas 

Et  mi  auri  fur  est.     HA.    Bellum  hominem,  quern  noueris. 
AG.    Len6,  rapacem  te  6sse  semper  cre"didi:  1385 

Verum  etiam  furacem  <aiunt>  qui  norunt  magis. 
LY.    Acc6dam.     per  ego  t  te  tua  te  genua  6bsecro 
Et  hune,  cognatum  que"m  tuom  esse  inte"llego: 
Quando  boni  estis,  ut  bonos  facere  addecet, 

Facite  ut  <uos>  uostro  subueniatis  supplici.  1390 

lam  prldem  equidem  istas  sciui  |  esse  Hberas 
Et  6xpectabam,  eiqui  eas  asserer6t  manu[m] : 
t  Nam  meas  prosum  non  sunt.     turn  autem  aurQm  tuom 
Reddam  quod  apud  mest  6t  ius  iurandum  dabo 
Me  malitiose  nil  fecisse,  Agorastocles.  1395 

AG.    Quid  mihi  par  facere  sit,  tcum  egomet  consulam. 
Omitte   genua.     LY.    Mitto,   si   ita  sent6ntiast. 
ANTA.    Heus  tu,  leno.     LY.    Quid  lenonem  uis  inter  negotium? 
ANTA.    Vt    <m>inam    mihi    arg6nti[m]    reddas,    prius    quam    in 

neruom  abdticere. 

LY.  Dl  meliora  faxint.     ANTA.  <Sic  est:  h6die  cenabls  foris:     1400 
Aurum,  argentum,  c6llum,   leno,    [s]tris  re<s>  nunc  debes  semul. 
HA.    Quid  me<d>  hae  re  facere  deceat,  Egomet  mecum  c6gito. 
Si  uolo  hunc  ulcisci,  litis  sequar  in  alieno  oppido, 
Quantum  audiui  inge"nium  et  mores  6ius  quo[d]    pact6  sient. 
AD.    Mi    pater,    nequid    tibi    cum    istoc    rei    tsiet    ac    massum 

6bsecro.        1405 

ANTE.    Ausculta  sor6ri.     abi,  diiunge  inimicitias  cum  inprobo. 
HA.    H6c   age    sis,   Ien6:    quamquam   ego   te   m6ruisse   ut    pereas 

scio, 
Non    experiar    t6cum.     AG.    Neque    ego,    si    aurum    mihi    reddens 

meum. 

Leno,  quando  ex  ne"ruo  emissu's,  conpingare  in  carcerem. 
LY.    Iam<ne>    autem,    ut    soles?     <ANTA.>    Ego,    Poene,   tibi    me 

purgatum  uolo.     1410 

Siquid  dixi  iratus  aduorsum  animi  tui  sententiam: 
id  uti  ignoscas,  qua^so,  et  quom  istas  inuenisti  filias, 
fta  me  di  ament,  <lit>  mihi  uolup[tatis]    est.     HA.       fgnosco  et 

credo  tibi. 


POENULTTS  63 

ANTA.  tLeno,  tu  autem  amicam  mihi  des  facito  aut  auri  mihi 

reddas  minam. 

LY.    Vin  tibicinam  meam  habere?     ANTA.    Nil  moror  tiblcinam: 

Ne"scias  utrum  el  maiores  buccaene  a<n>  mammal  sient.  1416 

LY.  Dabo  quae  placeat.  ANTA.  Cura.  LY.  Aurum  cras[s]  a<d>  te 

referam  tuom. 

AG.  Fac<i>to  in  memoria  habeas.  LY.  Miles,  sequere  me.  ANTA. 

Ego  uero  sequor. 

AG.    Quid   ais,    patrue?     quando    hinc    ire    c6gitas    Carthaginem  ? 

Nam  tecum  mihi  una  Ire  certumst.  HA.  Vbi  primum  potero, 

llico.  1420 

AG.    Dum  auctionem  facio,  hie  opus  est  aliquot  ut  manias  dies. 

HA.  Faciam  ita  ut  uis.  AG.  Age  sis,  eamus:  nos  curemus. 

plaudite. ) 

Double  Ending  (1315-1422).  The  manuscripts  of 
Plautus  give  two  versions  of  the  close  of  the  Poenulus, 
each  ending  with  a  request  for  applause  (11.  1315-1371 ; 
1372-1422).  Early  editors  tried  to  fix  upon  one  of  these 
endings  as  genuine,  and  to  discard  the  other ; 24  but  the 
prevalent  view  to-day  is  that  both  contain  a  mixture  of 
the  genuine  text  and  the  text  of  the  Plautine  Revival, 
with  some  still  later  additions  and  interpolations.  The 
older  of  the  two  versions  is  represented  by  11.  1322-1355 ; 
1398-1422 ;  but  even  this  is  probably  not  preserved  in 
the  form  in  which  Plautus  wrote  it.  Substitutions  were 
made  for  both  parts  of  this  ending,  though  not  necessarily 
by  the  same  author  or  at  the  same  date.  The  first  half 
was  displaced  by  the  confused  dialogue  of  11.  1372-1397, 
and  the  last  by  11.  1356-1371,  the  only  final  scene  in 
Plautus  which  is  written  in  iambic  senarii,  and  the  only 
one  in  which  the  abstract  comoedia  asks  for  applause.25 

Both  A  and  P  give  both  endings.  A  makes  no  division  between 
the  two;  P  leaves  a  space  as  if  for  a  new  scene  before  1.  1372. 


24  See  Goetz-Loewe,  Ed.    (1884),  on  V.,  7. 

25  On   the  whole  question,   see  Langen,  Plant.   Stud.,  pp.   343  ff.; 
Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  158,  note  3. 


64  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Except  for  some  slight  differences  which  will  be  discussed  below, 
the  form  of  the  two  endings  is  the  same  in  both  families  of 
manuscripts. 

1315  ff.  The  general  discussion  of  the  Double  Ending 
has  left  untouched  11.  1315-1321.  The  starting-point  of 
both  endings  is  the  insolent  speech  of  Antamoenides  to 
Hanno  (11.  1309-1314).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  speech 
is  rebuked  three  times:  (1)  by  Agorastocles  (11.  1315  ff.)  ; 
(2)  by  Adelphasium  (11.  1322  ff.)  ;  (3)  by  Agorastocles 
(11.  1372  ff.).  The  second  reproof  follows  the  apology 
of  the  miles  (11.  1320-1321),  and  is  clearly  out  of  place; 
the  third,  as  we  have  already  seen,  belongs  to  the  later 
version  of  the  ending.  Moreover,  there  are  three  an- 
nouncements of  the  approach  of  the  leno  in  three  successive 
lines  (1330-1332).  The  second  of  these  so  closely  res- 
embles the  first  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  an  alternative 
version,  and  the  repetition  of  eccum  in  the  third  throws 
suspicion  on  that  line  also.  The  passage  which  follows 
1.  1331  in  P  (11.  1333-1335)  is  identical  with  11.  1382- 
1384.  It  seems  more  appropriate  in  the  first  position, 
for  we  should  expect  Hanno  to  inquire  about  the  ap- 
proaching stranger  ;26  in  the  second,  since  Lycus  is  already 
taking  part  in  the  dialogue,  there  is  much  less  reason  for 
the  question.  It  is  probable  that  in  the  first  two  versions 
Antamoenides  was  rebuked  for  his  rudeness,  apologized, 
and  received  forgiveness;  then  as  the  leno  was  seen  ap- 
proaching, Hanno  inquired  about  him.  In  the  third  ver- 
sion, Lycus  entered  abruptly  after  1.  1314,  just  in  time 
to  hear  the  reproof  of  Antamoenides  and  to  learn  that 
Hanno  was  the  father  of  his  two  slaves.  The  three 
versions  therefore  ran  as  follows:  (1)  11.  1315-1321, 

'"Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  351. 


POENULUS 


65 


followed  by  11.  1329-1330,  1333-1335;  (2)  the  genuine 
version,  11.  1322-1328,  1329-1330,1333-1335  ;  (3)  11.  1372- 
1381. 

P  omits  1331  (which  is  certainly  due  to  retractatio) ,  but  aside 
from  that  omission  gives  1315-1337,  1372-1384  in  full  form  (1333- 
1335  =  1382-1384).  A  omits  1333-1335,  but  writes  quis  hicst  at  the 
close  of  1332,  showing  that  the  lines  must  have  appeared  in  full  form 
somewhere  in  the  A-family.  If  we  assume  that  1322-1328  and 
1372-1381  were  alternative  versions,  the  repetition  of  1333-1335  after 
1381  is  not  surprising. 

1378  ff.  The  repetition  of  1.  1377  after  1.  1381  in 
P  may  perhaps  indicate  a  shortening  of  the  scene  by 
the  omission  of  11.  1378-1381.27 

P  repeats   1377  after   1381. 

A  deest  after  1381,  but  apparently  did  not  repeat  1377,  for  the 
38  lines  of  the  missing  sheet  would  have  given  just  enough  space 
for  1382-1419. 

The  Poenulus  shows  more  extensive  alteration  than  any 
other  play  of  Plautus.  It  contains  the  longest  single 
case  of  dittography — the  Double  Ending — and  both  this 
ending  and  the  body  of  the  play  have  received  an  unusual 
amount  of  revision.  In  two  places  (11.  504  ff . ;  1315  ff.) 
there  are  clear  traces  of  three  parallel  versions.  Scat- 
tered through  the  play,  too,  in  passages  which  would 
otherwise  arouse  no  comment,  are  a  number  of  suspicious 
forms  (the  singular  verbs  in  11.  523,  728,  730,  733 ;  the 
nominative  in  -s  in  1.  955).  Then  there  are,  of  course, 
examples  of  the  more  common  kinds  of  retractatio:  var- 
iant lines  (214,  218,  304,  390')  and  longer  alternative 
versions  (11.  121-128;  917-929;  1042-1052),  and  possible 

"Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc.     Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  45,  note  c. 

5 


66  KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

attempts    to    shorten    scenes    (11.    622b,    706    ff.,    805, 
1377  ff.).28 

For  a  number  of  these  passages,  the  evidence  of  the 
Ambrosian  Palimpsest  is  lacking.  In  the  long  Double 
Ending,  the  text  of  A  and  P  is  practically  the  same, 
and  it  is  the  same  also  in  11.  917-929,  1147-1173.  A  and 
P  give  the  same  text,  though  their  order  differs,  in  11. 
300-305,  1267-1269;  and  in  two  places,  though  A  does 
not  preserve  the  whole  of  the  passage,  it  gives  enough 
to  show  that  the  passage  was  present  in  some  form  in  its 
archetype  (11.  389  ff . ;  1333  ff.).  In  two  instances 
where  retractatio  undoubtedly  exists,  A  shows  slightly 
more  evidence  of  it  than  P  (11.  706  ff.,  1042  ff.)  ;  and  the 
alternative  line  1331  is  preserved  only  in  A.  The  one 
change  which  A  apparently  fails  to  indicate  is  the  short- 
ening at  11.  1378  ff.  On  the  whole,  then,  A  shows  slightly 
more  evidence  of  retractatio  than  P. 

28  The  following  lines  have  also  been  suspected:  5-10,  14,  27,  37-40, 
46-58,  79-82,  159-163,  176,  225-232,  242,  244  ff.,  263-274,  275-282, 
289-296,  313-316,  327-328,  330-408,  352-354,  360-364,  370-380,  385, 
408,  419,  456bc,  518,  521,  550,  551,  576,  631-632,  669-678,  717- 
718,  721-745,  831,  865,  877-878,  950-960,  967-970,  982-984,  988- 
989,  990-991,  1020,  1036,  1075,  1079-1085,  1108,  1116,  1125-1126, 
1159,  1192-1204,  1212-1236,  1277-1279,  1328-1330,  1336-1337,  1349, 
1350,  1353-1358,  1393  f.,  1401,  1403-1404,  1408,  1417. 

The  evidence  of  A  is  lacking  for  5-10,  14,  27,  37-40,  46-58,  79-82, 
159-163,  176,  225-232,  242,  244  ff.,  263-274,  275-282,  518,  521,  550, 
551,  631-632,  717-718,  721-745,  831,  1075,  1079-1085,  1393,  1401, 
1403-1404,  1408,  1417.  Both  A  and  P  have  289-296,  313-316, 
327-328,  330-408,  352-354,  360-364,  370-380,  (P  has  the  order  376, 
375),  385,  408,  419,  576,  669-678,  865,  887-888,  950-960,  967-970, 
(P  has  the  order  969,  968),  982-984,  988-989,  990-991,  1020  (in 
different  order),  1036,  1108,  1116,  1125-1126,  1159,  1192-1204, 
1212-1236,  1277-1279,  1328-1330,  1336-1337,  1349,  1350,  1353-1358 
(A  omits  1353).  A  omits  456bc. 

The  following  lines  show  minor  variations:  331,  342,  343,  587, 
690,  875,  975,  1332. 


CHAPTER  III. 
P8EUDOLU8 

The  Pseudolus  was  a  favorite  with  Plautus  himself, 
if  we  may  believe  Cicero  (De  Senect.  14,  50),  and  its 
lively  action  and  exuberant  humor  have  made  the  play 
popular  ever  since.  The  situation  is  the  old  one  of  the 
youth  in  love.  This  time  his  name  is  Calidorus,  the  girl 
is  called  Phoenicium,  her  master  Ballio,  and  the  title- 
role  is  taken  by  Pseudolus,  the  slave  of  the  young  lover. 
In  the  first  scene,  Calidorus  shows  Pseudolus  a  letter  from 
Phoenicium,  announcing  that  she  has  been  sold  to  a  Mace- 
donian soldier  for  twenty  minae;  three-quarters  of  the 
sum  have  already  been  paid,  and  she  is  to  be  handed  over, 
on  the  payment  of  the  last  quarter,  to  the  soldier's  mes- 
senger, who  is  to  bring  an  impression  of  his  master's  seal- 
ring  as  identification;  the  limit  set  for  the  payment  of 
the  balance  is  the  next  feast  of  Dionysus,  which  falls  on 
the  morrow.  Ballio  is  next  introduced — a  brutal  char- 
acter at  best,  and  especially  brutal  to-day,  because  it  is 
his  birthday,  and  he  is  planning  to  give  a  grand  dinner. 
Calidorus  appeals  to  him  for  six  days  of  grace  on  the 
payment  of  twenty  minae  for  Phoenicium,  is  told,  to  his 
surprise  and  delight,  that  she  is  not  for  sale,  and  then 
hears  that  she  has  already  been  sold  to  a  Macedonian 
soldier — with  all  the  details  just  as  they  were  given  in 
the  first  scene,  except  that  the  time  set  for  the  payment 
of  the  other  five  minae  is  "  to-day."  Pseudolus  under- 
takes to  help  his  young  master,  frankly  confesses  his 
purpose  to  the  father,  Simo,  and  warns  the  old  gentleman 

67 


68  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTTJS 

that  lie  intends  to  cheat  him.  He  adds  that  he  is  plan- 
ning a  second  campaign,  against  the  leno  Ballio.  If  he 
succeeds  in  both  plots,  Simo  is  to  pay  for  the  girl.  Simo's 
friend  Callipho  promises  to  remain  at  home  that  day  and 
lend  his  aid  to  the  schemer.  Luck  throws  into  the  hands 
of  Pseudolus  a  sealed  letter  from  the  miles;  so  a  rogue 
who  rivals  Pseudolus  himself  in  cleverness  is  dressed  up 
like  the  soldier's  messenger,  and  sent  to  Ballio,  with  the 
letter  and  five  minae.  Ballio  recognizes  the  soldier's  seal, 
delivers  the  girl  to  the  messenger,  and  is  then  so  sure  of 
safety  from  attack  that  he  offers  to  give  Simo  twenty 
minae  if  Pseudolus  succeeds.  But  when  the  real  mes- 
senger of  the  miles  appears,  it  becomes  evident  that  the 
trick  is  already  played,  and  that  Ballio  is  the  victim. 
Simo  acknowledges  that  Pseudolus  has  won  his  twenty 
minae,  and  the  money  is  handed  over, — to  a  very  drunk 
and  very  impudent  slave. 

The  plot  of  the  Pseudolus  shows  obvious  inconsistencies. 
The  explanation  given  in  the  letter  (11.  51-59)  makes 
the  later  account  of  the  sale  of  Phoenicium  superfluous, 
and  the  attitude  of  Calidorus — his  tender  solicitude  for 
the  girl  (1.  231),  his  unbounded  joy  when  he  hears  that 
she  is  not  for  sale  (11.  323  ff.),  his  despair  when  the  truth 
is  finally  told  (11.  342  ff.) — is  quite  incomprehensible  in 
one  already  familiar  with  the  contents  of  the  letter. 
There  is  a  discrepancy,  too,  about  the  time  when  the  final 
payment  of  the  miles  is  due — Jiodie  in  the  one  case 
(11.  373  f.,  623  f.),  eras  in  the  other  (11.  60,  82).  Calli- 
pho, whom  we  expect  to  take  a  prominent  part  in  the  action 
after  his  promise  of  aid  to  Pseudolus  (11.  547-560), 
disappears  from  the  stage  at  the  end  of  the  scene  and  is 
never  mentioned  again. 


PSEUDOLTJS  69 

Ladewig  1  noticed  some  of  the  discrepancies,  and  sug- 
gested that  the  Pseudolus  really  contained  two  plots  :  (1) 
the  duping  of  the  old  man  to  get  the  money;  and  (2)  the 
duping  of  the  leno  to  get  the  girl.  But  other  scholars 
paid  little  attention  to  this  suggestion.  Langen  2  noted 
a  number  of  difficulties  in  the  plot,  without  attempting 
to  explain  them  by  contaminatio,  and  Leo 3  confined 
his  hint  of  two  originals  in  the  Pseudolus  to  a  foot-note. 
In  1897,  Bierma4  made  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  play, 
and  this  analysis,  modified  by  Seyffert,5  Leo,6  and  lately 
by  Schmitt,7  is  the  basis  of  work  today. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Pseudolus  does  not,  like  the  Miles 
and  the  Poenulus,  combine  two  full  plots,  but  that  certain 
scenes  from  one  plot  have  been  worked  into  the  other. 
The  two  plots  agree  in  general  features  :  in  both,  the 
difficulties  of  the  young  man  in  love  are  removed  by 
the  clever  slave  ;  in  both,  the  father  has  received  some 
warning  of  the  slave's  plans,  and  has  to  pay  over  a  sum 
of  money  at  the  end.  The  two  plots  may  be  sketched  as 
follows  :  (A)  The  girl  with  whom  the  young  man  is  in 
love  has  been  sold  to  a  Macedonian  soldier  ;  part  payment 
has  been  made,  and  the  balance  is  due  on  the  day  that 
the  play  opens.  The  slave  outwits  the  leno  by  getting 
possession  of  the  soldier's  letter,  and  sending  a  messenger 

1  Th.  Ladewig,  Uber  d.  Kanon  des   Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neustre- 
litz,  1842,  pp.  32  f. 

2  Langen,   Plant.   Stud.,  pp.    198  ff. 

3  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  153,  n.  2. 

4  J.  W.  Bierma,  Quaestiones  de  Plautina  Pseudolo,  Groningen,  1897. 
5Seyffert  in  Berl.  Phil.  Woch.  18    (1898),  coll.   1511-1515. 
•Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.   Ges.   1903,  pp.  347-354. 

7  A.  Schmitt,  De  Pseudoli  Plautinae  exemplo  Attico,  Straasburg, 
1909.  (Accessible  to  me  only  in  a  review  by  M.  Niemeyer  in  Berl. 
Phil.  Woch.  30  (1910),  coll.  870-873). 


70  BETBACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

with  it  to  fetch  the  girl.  The  actual  cost  of  the  girl  is 
defrayed  by  the  young  man's  father,  who  has  previously 
agreed  to  pay  this  sum  if  the  slave's  ruse  succeeds;  but 
he  is  reimbursed  by  the  leno,  who  has  in  the  meantime 
promised  him  twenty  minae  on  the  same  conditions.  So 
the  leno  is  ruined,  and  his  fall  is  all  the  greater  because 
the  scene  is  laid  on  his  birthday.8  (B)  The  young  man 
needs  twenty  minae  to  pay  for  the  girl,  the  morrow  being 
the  last  opportunity.  The  slave  gets  this  sum  by  cheat- 
ing the  father,  after  he  has  announced  his  intentions  and 
warned  the  old  man  to  be  on  his  guard.  In  the  trick 
(the  details  of  which  we  can  not  fill  out)  he  has  the  help 
of  the  father's  friend  Callipho.  To  the  first  plot  (A) 
belong  L,  2,  3 ;  II.,  2-IV.,  8 ;  to  the  second  (B)  :  L,  1  (ex- 
cept 11.  51-59),  4,  5  (except  11.  522-546) ;  V.,  2.  Plautus 
himself  made  some  changes;  he  added  11.  51-59,  and  522- 
546  9  (elements  from  plot  B)  to  plot  A ;  he  combined  the 
two  plots  in  II.,  1 ;  and  he  added  V.,  1 10  and  certain 
details  (e.  g.  1.  1308)  in  V.,  2. 


8  It  is  po&sible  that  this  motif  had  even  more  prominence  in  the 
original.  It  is  emphasized  in  11.  165,  167,  179,  234,  243,  1237, 
and  forms  the  sole  connecting  link  between  Act  III.  and  the  rest 
of  the  play.  Cf .  Bierma,  De  Plant.  Pseud.,  pp.  40  ff .,  87  f . ;  Leo 
in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1903,  p.  352. 

'The  insertion  is  unskillfully  made,  and  has  resulted  in  some 
confusion.  As  the  dialogue  stands,  Simo  agrees  that  if  Pseudolus 
succeeds  in  both  plots  (i.  e.,  the  duping  of  Simo  himself  and  the 
duping  of  Ballio)  Simo  will  pay  him  twenty  minae.  The  original 
bargain  in  plot  B  must  have  been  that  Simo  would  pay  the  money 
if  Pseudolus  succeeded  in  cheating  Ballio.  Cf.  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott. 
Ges.  1903,  pp.  349  ff. 

"Hence  the  double  motivation  of  the  entrance  of  Pseudolus  (11. 
1282,  1283),  and  of  Simo's  return  to  the  stage  (11.  1239  ff.,  1285). 
Cf.  Leo,  Plant.  Cant.,  p.  41,  note,  in  Abhandl.  Gott.  Ges.,  1896-1897. 


PSEUDOLUS  71 

Exporgi  meliust  lumbos  atque  exsurgier: 
Plautlna  longa   fabula   in  scaenam  uenit. 

Prologue  (II.  1-2).  Both  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest 
and  the  Palatine  manuscripts  give  these  two  lines,  which 
bear  the  mark  of  the  Plautine  Revival  in  the  phrase 
Plautina  longa  fabula.  (Cf.  Cas.  Prol.  12).  A  pro- 
logue is  really  unnecessary  for  the  exposition  of  the  Pseu- 
doluSy11  and  Lindsay 12  therefore  concludes  that  the  ex- 
tant couplet  formed  the  whole  of  the  later  stage-man- 
ager's introduction.  But  though  the  play  may  be  per- 
fectly clear  without  the  prologue,  the  prologue  in  its 
present  form  is  far  from  clear.  The  comparative  melius 
(1.  1)  demands  as  least  an  implied  positive,  and  there  is 
no  expressed  subject  for  the  infinitives  exporgi  and  exsur- 
gier. The  extant  prologue  must  therefore  have  been 
preceded  by  several  lines,  and  it  was  probably  followed 
by  others  giving  the  name  of  the  Plautina  fabula  and 
making  the  usual  request  for  quiet.13 

P  prefixes  the  prologue  to  Argument  I.     (omitting  Argument  II.). 
A    places    the    prologue    immediately   before    Scene    I.    (omitting 
Argument  I.  and  giving  Argument  II.   in  a  later  hand). 


PS.     '  Nunc  nostri  amores,  mores,  consuetudines,  64 

locus  Mdus,  sermo,  suaui[s]sauiatio,  65 

Compressiones    artae    amantum    comparum, 

Tenerls  labellis  m6lles  morsiunculae, 

Nostrorum  orgiorum  *  s  *  *  *  itinculae,  67b 

Papillarum  horridularum  oppressiunculae'. 

Harunc    uoluptatum    mlhi    omnium    atque    itide"m    tibi 

Distractio,    discldium,    uastiti6s    uenit.  70 

"'Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  196. 

12  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  1,  note  a. 

"Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  197. 


72  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

6>7b.  The  verse,  as  Lowe  14  noted  when  he  tried  to  re- 
construct its  reading  from  the  Palimpsest,  is  not  appro- 
priate here,  for  it  inserts  a  phrase  of  general  nature  in 
a  list  of  specific  details.  He  likewise  objected  to  the 
word  orgia,  which  does  not  appear  elsewhere  in  Roman 
literature  before  Catullus.  Leo  15  surmised  that  the  line 
might  be  a  later  addition  to  1.  64,  and  this  hypothesis  is 
possible,  although  in  the  broken  state  of  the  text  it  is  hard 
to  reach  definite  conclusions. 

P  omits  67b. 


Nempe  fta  animati  |  estis  uos:  uincltis  duritda  hoc  atque  me     151 

Hoc  sfs  uide  ut  alias  re's  agunt.     hoc  agite,  hoc  animum  aduortite. 

Hue  adhibete  auris  quae  e"go   loquar,   plaglgera  genera  |  homi- 

num. 
Numquam  e"depol  uostrum  dfirius  tergum  e"rit  quam  terginum  h6c 

meum. 

Quid     mine?     doletne?     em     sic     datur,     siquls     erum     seruos 

spe"rniti          155 
Adsfstite  omnes  c6ntra  me  et  quae  I6quar  aduortite  animum. 

151-156.  Even  the  general  wordiness  of  Ballio's 
speech  does  not  excuse  the  three  commands  to  pay  at- 
tention (11.  152,  153,  156)  in  so  brief  a  space.  Vincitis 
duritia  hoc  [ierginum]  atque  me  (11.  151),  and  numquam 
edepol  vostrum  durius  tergum  erit  quam  terginum  hoc 
meum  (1.  154),  have  the  same  idea  at  base,  though  the 
.turn  given  to  it  is  different  ;  and  the  two  lines  are  intoler- 
able together.  Hoc  (1.  151)  must  mean  terginum  (cf.  1. 
154),  and  though  the  action  on  the  stage  probably  helped 
to  make  the  sentence  clear,  still  the  postponement  of  the 
noun  is  at  least  noticeable.  There  are  two  cases  of  verbal 

14  G.  Lowe,  Analecta  Plautina,  Leipzig,  1877,  pp.  153  ff. 
"Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 


PSEUDOLUS  73 

repetition:  152  animum  advortite,  cf.  156  advortite 
animum;  153  quae  ego  loquar,  cf.  156  qiLae  loquar, 
Therefore  it  seems  possible  that  we  have  two  versions  : 
(1)  151-153  ;  (2)  154-156.  Of  these,  the  second  is 
probably  Plautine,  for  the  phrase  contra  me  (1.  156)  to 
which  Lorenz  16  objected,  is  paralleled  in  Pers.  13,  and 
the  clearness  of  1.  156,  as  opposed  to  1.  151,  together  with 
the  play  on  tergum  .  .  .  terginum,  counts  in  its  favor. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  has  the  whole  passage,  but  puts  153  after  154. 


Tfbi  hoc  praecipio  ut  nlteant  aedes:  habes  quod  facias:   prdpera, 

abi  intro.  161 

Tfi  esto  lectiste'rniator.     tti  argentum  eluito,  Idem  exstruito. 
Haec,  quom  ego  a  foro  reuortor,  facite  ut  offendam  parata, 
VCrsa  sparsa,  te"rsa  strata,  lautaque  unctaque  omnia  uti  sint. 
Nam   mi  h6die   na tails   dies   est:    decet   e"um   omnis   uos  concSle- 

brare.  165 

Pernam   callum   glandium   sumen   facito   in   aqua   iaceant.     satin 

audis  ? 
Magnifice    uolo    me    uiros    summos    accfpere,    ut    mihi    rem    esse" 

reantur. 
Intro  abite  atque  haec  cito  celebrate,  ne  m6ra  quae  sit,  cocus  qu6m 

veniat   [mihi]. 

166.  This  verse  breaks  the  close  connection  between 
1.  165  and  1.  167,  and  is  quite  out  of  place  here  under  any 
circumstances.  Ballio  has  finished  his  individual  com- 
missions in  1.  162,  and  11.  163-168,  with  the  sole  exception 
of  1.  166,  are  general  directions  in  the  plural.17 

The  line  is  given  in  both  A  and  P. 


"A.  Lorenz  in  Philol.  35    (1876),  p.  159. 

"  Cf.  H.  Usener  in  Index  schol.  Gryphisivald.,  1866,  pp.  13  ff. 


74 


EETBACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


t  Xy tills,  face  ut  animum  aduortas,  quoius  amatorgs  oliui          210 
Dynamin   domi  habent  maxumam: 
Si    mihi   non   iam   hue    culleis 
61eum  deportatum  erit, 

Te  ipsam  culleo  e"go  eras  faciam  ut  de"portere  in  pgrgulam. 
ibi    tibi   adeo    lectus    dabitur,    ubi   tu   hau   somnum    capias,    sed 

ubi  215 

Vsque  ad  languore"m  — :    tenes 
Quo  se  haec  tendant  quae"  loquor. 
Am,    excetra    tu,    quae"    tibi    amicos    t6t    habes    tarn    probe    oleo 

onustos  ? 
Num  quofpiamst  hodi6  tua  tuorum  6pera  conseru6rum 

Nltidiuscultim     caput?     aut     num     ipse     6go     pulmento     ut6r 

magis  220 

^nctiusculS  ?   sed  scio,    tu  |  Oleum   hau   magni   p6ndis:    uino 

T4  deu[i]ngis.     sine  modo: 
R6prehendam  ego  cuncta  h^rcle  una  opera,  nisi  quidem  tu  hodie 

6mnia 
Facis  eflfecta  haec  tit  loquor. 

210-22 J+.  As  the  text  stands,  this  whole  passage  is 
addressed  to  Xytilis.  The  length  of  the  tirade  is  quite 
out  of  proportion  to  the  speeches  addressed  to  the  other 
meretrices  (11.  188-193  ;  196-201  ;  225-229).  The  sense 
of  11.  210  f.  is  repeated  in  1.  218,  and  the  threats  of  11. 
222-224  are  an  anticlimax  after  11.  212-217.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  11.  218-224  are  a  second  version,  intended  to 
avoid  the  brutality  of  11.  210-217.18 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 


PS.    Hoc  ego  oppidum  admoenire  ut  h6die  capiatur  uolo.         384 
Ad   eum  rem   usust  h6minem   astutum   ddctum,  cautum  et   calli- 

dum,  385 

Qui   Imperata  ecfe"cta   reddat,   n6n  qui   uigilans  d6rmiat. 
CA.     C6do  mihi,  quid  6s  facturus?     PS.    Te"mperi  ego  fax6  scies. 

18  E.  Norden  in  Rhein.   Mus.  49    (1894),  pp.   197  ff. 


PSEUDOLUS  75 

N6lo  bis  iterari:    sat  sic   I6ngae   fiunt   fabulae. 

CA.    6ptumum    atque    aequlssumum    oras.     PS.    Pr6pera,    adduc 

homingm   cito. 

<CA.>    Pauci  ex  multis  sunt  amici,  homini  qui  certf  sient.         390 
PS.    iSgo  scio  istuc:  e"rgo  utrumque  tibi  nunc  dilecttim  para 
Atque  ex  multis  enquire  illis  unum  qui  certus  siet. 
<CA.>  lam  hie  faxo  aderit;     PS.    P6tin  ut  [h]abeas?  tibi  moram 

dictis    creas. 

385-386.  The  end  of  this  scene  is  almost  hopelessly 
confused.  The  request  of  11.  -385-386  is  repeated  in  11. 
724-728,  where  it  is  much  more  in  place  ;  for  Pseudolus 
has  by  that  time  gained  possession  of  the  letter  and  has 
formed  a  plan  in  which  he  needs  the  help  of  a  clever 
rogue.  The  reflection  of  Calidorus  (1.  390)  and  the  re- 
sponse of  Pseudolus  (11.  391  f.)  sound  as  if  Pseudolus 
had  really  asked,  not  for  a  rogue,  but  for  a  trusty  friend ; 
and  11.  697f.,  spoken  when  Calidorus  brings  in  his  friend 
Charinus,  agree  with  this  interpretation: 

Pseudolus  mihi   ita  imperavit,   ut  aliquem  hominem  strenuom 
Benevolentem  adducerem  ad  se. 

LI.  385-386,  then,  are  inappropriate  in  their  present 
position.  It  seems  possible  that  they  were  made  up  on 
the  model  of  11.  724  ff.,  and  got  into  this  position  by 
mistake,  crowding  out  a  bit  of  the  original  dialogue,  in 
which  Pseudolus  asked  for  the  aid  of  a  friend. 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 


PS.    Atque  e"go  me  iam  pridem  hufc   daturum  dfxeram  406 

Et  uolui  inicere  tragulam  in  nostrum  senem: 
Verum  Is  nescioquo  pacto  praesenslt  prius. 

406-408.     The  vague  allusion  of  these  verses   is  not 


76  KETKACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

explained  by  anything  in  the  earlier  scenes  of  the 
Pseudolus,  and  the  difficulty  is  not  materially  lessened 
by  the  assumption  of  contamination  It  seems  probable 
that  the  passage  is  a  later  insertion,  suggested  by  11.  421- 
422  : 

SI.    Si  d6   damnoseis  atit  si  de  amatoribus  415 

Dictator  fiat  ntinc  Athenis  Atticis, 

Nemo   anteueniat   filio   credo   meo. 

Ita   nfinc   per   urbem   s6lus    sermoni    omnibust, 

Eum   ue"lle    amicam   llberare   et   quaSrere 

Arge"ntum  ad.  earn  rem:   hoc  alii  mihi  renuntiant 

Atque  id  iam  pridem  se"nsi  et  subolebat  mihi,  421 

Sed    dlssimulabam.     PS.    Iam    illi   fe  *  *  filius: 

Occfsast   haec    res,   hae"ret   hoc   neg6tium. 

One  notices  the  repetitions  :  406  iam  pridem,  cf.  421 
iam  pridem  ;  408  praesensit,  cf.  421  sensi  ;  and  the  fact 
that  huic  (1.  406)  has  no  antecedent. 

The  passage  occurs  in  both  A  and  P. 


PS.    Vin  e"tiam  dicam  qu6d  uos  magis  mire'mini?  522 

CA.    Studeo  he"rcle  audire:    nam  ted  auscult6   lubens. 

SI.    Agedtim:   nam  satis  lubgnter  te  ausculto   loqui.  523b 

523s*.  These  verses  are  clearly  doublets.  Abraham  20 
has  shown  conclusively  that  the  second  is  un-Plautine. 
Auscultare  in  Plautus  never  takes  a  complementary  in- 
finitive, and  is  never  joined  with  an  adverb,  but  always 
with  an  adjective;  agedum  is  never  used  alone,  but  always 
with  another  imperative;  and  satis  lubenter  does  not 
occur  elsewhere  in  Plautus.  The  intention  of  the  author 


19Bierma's  explanation.     Cf.  De  Plcwt.  Pseud.,  pp.  38  f.,  56  f. 
20  W.   Abraham,   Studio,  Plautina,   Leipzig,    1884,   pp.    182  ff. 


PSEUDOLUS  77 

of  the  line  may  have  been  either  to  supply  a  variant  for 
1.  523a,  or  to  add  another  verse,  and  so  give  both  the  old 
men  speaking  parts. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  deest  2  sheets  =  76  11. 

A  deest  477-551  =  77  11.    (including  523b  and  543"). 
Therefore  A  probably  omitted  523b. 


Conce"dere  aliquantfsper  hinc  mihi  intro  lubet,                            571 
Dum  concenturio  in  c6rde  sycophantias. 

*  *  *  *  n6n  ero  uobis  morae.  573* 

Tiblcen  uos  inte"ribi  hie  delectauerit.  573b 

573*.  The  beginning  of  1.  573a  is  lost  in  the  Palimp- 
sest, but  enough  is  left  to  show  that  it  contained  much 
the  same  announcement  as  11.  571-572.  Interibi  (1.  573b) 
must,  as  Baier  21  points  out,  refer  not  to  the  line  imme- 
diately preceding,  but  to  dum  concenturio  (1.  572). 
Therefore  1.  573a  is  probably  due  to  retractatio,  its  object 
being  to  announce  clearly  the  return  of  Pseudolus  in  the 
next  scene. 

P  omits  573*. 


Seel  iam  satis  est  phflosophatum :  nlmis  diu  et  longum  loquor     687 

Di  Immortales,  aurichalco  c6ntra  non  carum  fuit 

Meum  mendacium,  hie  modo  quod  subito  commenttis  fui, 

Qufa  lenonis  m6  esse  dixi.     nunc  ego  hac  epfstula  690 

Tris  deludam,  erum  €t  lenonem  et  qui  hanc  dedit  mihi  eplstulam. 

Euge:    p»ar  pari   aliud  autem  qu6d  cupiebam  c6ntigit: 

Ve"nit   eccum    Oalidorus:    ducit   n^scioquem   secum   simul. 


688  ff.     The   exultant   di   immortales,   with   which   1. 
begins,  echoes  1.  667,  and  the  tone  of  the  next  few 


31 B.   Baier,  De   Plauti  Pal.   Recenss.,   p.    128. 


78  BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

lines  is  what  we  should  expect  at  the  beginning  of  a 
speech.  This  is  particularly  strange,  because  Pseudolus  has 
just  announced  (1.  687)  :  sed  iam  satis  est  philosophatum. 
Leo  22  therefore  advances  the  plausible  theory  that  the 
speech  of  Pseudolus  originally  consisted  of  11.  667-687  sed 
iam  satis  est  philosophatum,  followed  by  690  nunc  ego 
hac  epistula  -693 ;  then  11.  688-690  quia  lenonis  me  esse 
dixi  were  substituted  for  the  early  part  of  this  scene; 
and  the  editor  who  combined  the  two  versions,  finding 
a  vacant  half  line  at  the  end  of  1.  687,  supplied  nimis 
diu  et  longum  loquor. 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 


CA.    Dulcia  atque  amara  apud  te  sum  e"locutus  6mnia:  694 

Scis  amorem,  scfs  laborem,  scls   egestate"m  meam. 

CH.    C6mmemini    omnia:    Id    tu    modo    me    quid    uis    facere    fac 

sciam.  69  6a 

[CA.    Quom   haec   tibi   alia  sum   elocutus   uis    scires   si  scis   de 

symbolo. 

CH.     Omnia     inquam    tu    modo    quid    me    facere    uis  fac    ut 

soiam.]  69  6C 

69 6bc.  These  two  lines,  which  are  in  part  a  verbal 
repetition  of  11.  694-696*,  seem  to  offer  an  alternative 
version:  694  apud  te,  cf.  696b  tibi;  694  sum  elocutus, 
cf.  696b  sum  elocutus;  696"  omnia,  cf.  696C  omnia;  696" 
tu  modo  me  quid  vis  facere  fac  sciam,  cf.  69 6C  tu  modo 
quid  me  facere  vis  fac  ut  sciam.  The  symbolum  which 
is  introduced  so  abruptly  here  (1.  69 6b)  could  have  had 
no  special  significance  for  the  story  of  Calidorus,  though 
it  was  of  importance  in  the  trick  that  Pseudolus  planned 

22  Leo,  Ed.   (1896),  ad  loc. 


PSEUDOLUS  79 

to  play.     The  purpose  of  the  alteration  may  have  been 
to  emphasize  this  detail. 

A  omits   696bc 


SI.    Viss6  quid  rerum  m6us  Vlixes  e"gerit,  1063 

lamne  habeat  signum  ex  arce  Ballionia. 

BA.    O  f6rtunate,  ce"do   fortunatam   manum.  1065 

SI.    Quid    6st?     BA.    lam— SI.    Quid    iam?     BA.    Nil    est    quod 

metuas.     SI.    Quid    est? 

Venitne  homo  ad  te?     BA.    Non.     SI.    Quid  est  igitur   boni? 
BA.    Minae"   uiginti  sanae   et  saluae   sunt  tibi, 
Hodie"  quas  aps  te<d>  6st  stipulatus  Pseudolus.  1069 

********* 

SI.    Sed   c6nuenistin   hOminem?     BA.    Immo   amb6   simul.       1079 

SI.    Quid    alt?     quid    narrat?     quae"so,    quid    diclt   tibi?  1080 

BA.    Nugas  theatri:  ue"rba  quae  in  comoe'diis 

Solent  lenoni  dlci,  quae  puerl  sciunt: 

Malum  e"t  scelestum  et  p6iurum,  adbat  e"sse  me. 

SI.    Pol  hali  mentitust.     BA.    6rgo  haud  iratus  fui. 

Nam  quanti  refert  el  nee   recte   dlcere^  1085 

Qui  nfl<i>   faciat  qulque  infitias   n6n  eat? 

1079-1086.  These  lines  were  suspected  of  being  due 
to  retractatio  by  Kiessling,23  in  1868,  and  have  been 
bracketed  by  most  editors  since  then.  The  question  of 
1.  1079  is  a  surprise  after  1.  1067,  and  the  answer  an 
absolute  contradiction.  The  sense  of  the  two  questions 
is  the  same;  for  Simo  is  evidently  referring,  not  to  the 
meeting  with  Pseudolus  in  I.,  3,  which  Ballio  describes, 
but  to  a  meeting  in  which  Pseudolus  might  have  tried 
to  trick  Ballio.  So  1.  1079  repeats  1.  1067,  and  the  whole 
passage  is  probably  a  later  addition. 

A  and  P  give  the  passage  in  the  same  form  through   1084 — then 
A  deest. 


23  A.  Kiessling  in  Rhein.  Mus,  23    (1868),  pp.  425  f. 


80  EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Heus,  ubi  estis  uos?  <BA.>  Hicquidem  ad  me  rScta  habet 

rectam  uiain.  1136 

<HA.>  Heus,  ubi  estis  uos?  <BA.>  Heus,  adulescens,  quid  istic 

debetur  tibi? 

Be"ne  ego  ab  hoc  praedatus  ibo:    n6ui,  bona  scaeuast  mihi. 

<HA.>  6cquis  hoc  aperit?  <BA.>  Heus,  chlamydate,  quid  istic 

debetur  tibi? 

<HA.>    A6dium    dominum    lenonem    Ballionem    quaerito.  1140 

1137.  L.  1137,  which  combines  1.  1136  and  1.  1139, 
was  probably  intended  as  a  substitute  for  11.  1136,  1138- 
1139.  If  1.  1137  were  genuine,  we  should  expect  it  to 
be  followed,  not  by  another  aside  by  Ballio  (1.  1138), 
but  by  the  answer  of  Harpax  (1.  1140). 24 

Both  A  and  P  give  1.   1137. 


BA.    6depol  hominem  ue*rberonem  Pseudolum,  ut  docte"  dolum    1205 
C6mmentust :    tantundem   argenti   quantum   miles  de"buit 
D6dit    huic    atque    hominem     feornauit,     mulierem     qui     abdu- 

ceret.  1207.    1208 

1205-1207.  An  attempt  to  cut  out  11.  1162-1204  may 
be  indicated  by  the  repetition  of  11.  1205-1207  after 
1.  1161. 

BA.  Quid  agimus?  manufe'sto  teneo  hunc  h6minem  qui  argen- 

tum  attulit.  1160 

SI.  Quldum?  BA.  An  nescis  quae*  sit  haec  res?  SI.  luxta  cum 

ignarissumis. 

BA.    Peeudolus  tuos  allegauit  htinc,  quasi  a  Mac6donio 

Milite   esset. 

A  ha/s  the  passage  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
P  has   1205-1207   both  after    1161   and  -after   1204 


24  The    first    scholar    to    suspect    the    line    was    Fleckeisen.     Cf . 
Ritschl's  Ed.  of  Pseud.   (1850),  Praef.,  pp.  xiiif. 


PSEUDOLTJS  81 

BA.  6depol  ne  istuc  magis  magisque  me"tuo,  quom  uerba  'au- 
dio. 1214 

[BA.]  Mlhi  quoque  edepol  iam  dudum  ille  Stirus  cor  perfrige"- 

facdt, 

Sumbolum  qui  ab  hoc  accepit.     mira  sunt,  ni  Psetidolust. 

121^-1216.  The  first  of  these  verses  is  the  same  in 
sense  as  the  last  two,  and  the  word  edepol  is  repeated. 
It  is  worth  noting,  also,  that  the  best  manuscripts  of  the 
Palatine  family  prefix  BA.  to  1.  1215.  Perhaps  1.  1214 
was  substituted  by  the  same  reviser  who  cut  out  11. 
1162-1204,  who  accordingly  wished  to  avoid  the  name 
Sums.  (Of.  1.  1203  ).25 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 

The  results  of  work  on  the  Pseudolus  are  somewhat 
unsatisfactory.  After  the  undoubted  evidences  of  retrac- 
tatio  in  the  prologue,  we  expect  to  find  further  traces  of 
change  in  the  text  of  the  play.  But  only  11.  523,b  688  ff., 
1137  can  be  put  down  with  any  degree  of  certainty  as 
later  versions.  In  many  other  places  (e.  g.,  11.  166, 
385  ff.),  though  there  is  unquestionably  something  wrong 
with  the  text,  it  is  hard  to  locate  the  trouble  exactly. 
Certain  lines  preserved  in  A  alone  (11.  67b,  573a)  are 
probably  due  to  retractatio,  but  are  so  fragmentary  that 
any  statement  about  them  must  be  qualified.  Two  pas- 
sages (11.  151-156,  210-224)  seem  to  present  parallel 
versions;  11.  406-408  are  apparently  a  later  addition;  and 
11.  1205-1207  were  perhaps  inserted  after  1.  1161  to 
shorten  the  scene.26 

^Ribbeck  suspected  the  verse.  Cf.  Ritschl's  Ed.  of  Men.  (1851), 
Praef.,  p.  xv. 

26  In  addition  to  the  passages  discussed  in  detail,  the  following 
lines  of  the  Pseudolus  have  also  been  suspected:  65,  82,  91  ff.,  97, 

6 


82  KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

In  these  cases  of  retractatio,  possible  or  probable,  the 
two  families  of  manuscripts  are  almost  evenly  balanced. 
Most  passages  have  the  same  form  in  both.  A  is  the 
only  one  to  preserve  11.  67",  5T3a.  P  alone  has  11.  696bc 
and  repeats  11.  1205-1207,  and  A  probably  omitted  1. 
523b  also.  But  at  least  the  Pseudolus  shows  that  A  is 
not  a  purer  text  than  P. 


116,  142,  176,  177,  205-208,  238,  259-263b,  269,  284,  292-295,  307, 
336  f.,  384,  398,  403,  422,  467,  485,  497-499,  502  f.,  527,  530,  543b, 
544,  550,  565  f.,  576  f.,  585b,  586,  599,  600,  737-750,  759-766,  767- 
904,  768,  781  f.,  842  f.,  866-889,  936-939b,  944,  1002-1008,  1025-1031, 
1043,  1073,  1093.  1097,  1098,  1196,  1204,  1245,  1259-1261,  1277  f., 
1314. 

These  suspected  passages  are  preserved  as  follows:  A  deest:  238, 
259-263b,  485,  497-499,  502  f.,  527,  530,  543b,  544,  550  737-750,  759- 
766,  767-904,  768,  781  f.,  1025-1031,  1043,  1093,  1097,  1098,  'l259- 
1261,  1277  f.  Both  A  and  P  have  65,  82,  91  ff.,  97,  116,  142,  176, 
177,  205-208,  269,  284,  307,  336  f.,  384,  398,  403,  467,  565  f.,  576  f., 
585b,  586,  599,  600,  842  f.,  866-889,  936-939b,  944,  1002-1008  (A 
transposes  1002,  1003),  1073,  1196,  1204,  1245,  1314.  A  omits  293- 
295,  and  places  292  after  296.  P  omits  422. 

The  text  of  the  Pseudolus  shows  an  unusually  large  number  of 
slight  differences  between  the  two  families  of  manuscripts.  Varia- 
tions of  a  word  or  phrase  occur  in  the  following  lines:  85,  152,  208, 
223,  298,  308,  315,  321,  340,  372,  375,  385,  389,  391,  392,  397,  418, 
432,  433,  451,  621,  627,  631,  659,  669,  700,  723.  841,  843,  856,  864, 
873,  889,  901,  954,  955,  975,  978,  992,  997,  1175,  1204,  1220,  1294, 
1295,  1299. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

• 

STICHUS 

The  opening  scene  of  the  Stichus  introduces  two  sisters, 
whose  husbands  have  left  home  three  years  before  to 
repair  their  damaged  fortunes,  and  have  not  been  heard 
from  since.  Their  father,  Antipho,  wishes  them  to 
marry  again,  but  they  firmly  refuse.  The  elder  sister, 
Panegyris,  sends  for  the  parasite  Gelasimus,  explaining 
that  she  wishes  to  dispatch  him  to  the  harbor  for  special 
tidings.  But  before  he  reaches  her  door,  the  slave  who 
is  regularly  on  the  watch  comes  from  the  port  with  the 
news  that  Epignomus  and  Pamphilippus  have  arrived. 
Epignomus  and  his  slave  Stichus  appear  on  the  stage; 
Stichus  asks  for  a  holiday,  and  receives  permission  to 
go  to  a  banquet  with  Sagarinus,  the  slave  of  Pamphilip- 
pus, and  Stephanium,  who  is  arnica  ambobus.  Then 
follows  a  series  of  scenes  in  which  the  parasite  makes 
desperate  efforts  to  get  an  invitation  to  dinner,  but  is 
repulsed,  and  the  two  brothers,  who  have  in  the  mean- 
time become  reconciled  with  their  father-in-law  and  with 
their  wives,  plan  a  banquet  together.  After  this  Stichus 
comes  on  again,  ready  for  the  feast,  and  through  the  last 
six  scenes  of  the  play  he  and  his  two  friends  drink  and 
dance  and  sing. 

"  Ein  ratselhaftes  Stuck,"  said  Teuffel l  of  the  Stichus, 
and  the  play  has  remained  "  a  puzzle  "  to  scholars  ever 

1W.  Teuffel  in  Rhein.  Mus.  8  (1853),  p.  38  (—Stud.  u.  Char.* 
p.  340). 

83 


84  KETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

since.  All  are  agreed  2  that  the  play  which  we  possess 
is  very  different  from  the  "  ADELPHOE  MENANDEU  " 
which  the  didascalia  names  as  its  source.  Bitschl  3  char- 
acterized the  Stichus  as  "  ausserst  fiiichtig  skizzirt,"  and 
Leo  4  has  said  of  it  in  recent  years,  "  Die  Teile  sind  sehr 
hiibsch,  das  Ganze  unmoglich." 

The  play  opens  as  if  it  were  to  hinge  upon  the  faith- 
fulness of  two  wives  to  their  husbands.  The  second, 
third,  and  fourth  acts,  in  which  the  husbands  return  and 
become  reconciled  with  their  father-in-law,  are  slightly 
connected  with  the  theme  of  the  first  act,  though  they 
give  much  less  prominence  to  the  women  than  we  should 
expect.  But  in  the  fifth  act  all  these  characters  disap- 
pear from  the  stage,  and  the  rest  of  the  play  is  taken 
up  with  the  banquet  of  their  slaves. 

The  slight  connection  of  Act  V.  with  the  rest  of  the 
play  led  Goetz  5  to  suspect  retractatio,  and  Winter  6  even 
assumed  that  a  later  author  combined  two  plays  of 
Plautus  to  make  the  Stichus.  But  such  composition  is 
not  impossible  for  Plautus  himself.7  We  remember  that 
he  was  sometimes  unsuccessful  in  combining  two  Greek 
comedies,  and  that  he  sometimes  left  out  important  scenes 
at  the  close  of  a  play.  (Of.  Cas.  641;  Cist.  782  ff.) 
So  the  lack  of  unity  in  the  Stichus  is  not  a  sufficient 
reason  for  denying  the  play  in  its  present  form  to  him. 

2W.   Suss   in  Rhein.  Mus.   65    (1910),  pp.   452  ff.,   tries  to   prove 
that  the  Stichus  accurately  represents  the  Greek  original. 
3Ritschl,  Parerga,  p.  280. 

4  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  376. 

5  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil  Lips.  6    (1876),  pp.  302  ff. 

6F.  Winter,  Plauti  Falularum  Deperditarum  Fragmenta,  Bonn, 
1885,  pp.  82  if. 

7Cf.  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  150 ff.;  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges. 
1902,  p.  377. 


STICHUS  85 

Such  a  lack  of  unity  would,  however,  have  been  im- 
possible in  the  Greek  original.  Even  Aristophanes 
makes  his  plays  center  around  one  or  two  principal 
characters,  who  take  part  in  the  riotous  scenes  at  the 
end  as  well  as  in  the  earlier  action;  and  the  Persa  of 
Plautus,  which  is  probably  based  on  an  original  of  the 
Middle  Comedy,  preserves  the  unity  of  characters  through 
the  banquet-scene.8  From  all  that  we  know  of  New 
Comedy,  and  especially  of  Menander,  we  can  infer  that 
unity  of  character  was  still  more  essential  there.  Before 
the  discovery  of  the  Cairo  papyrus,  Wilamowitz  declared 
that  Menander  could  never  have  joined  Jiumano  capiti 
cervicam  equinam;  9  and  we  to-day  can  make  the  state- 
ment even  more  positively.  The  fifth  act  of  the  Stichus, 
then,  must  contain  some  alteration  by  Plautus,  and  the 
passage  (11.  419-453)  which  prepares  for  Act  V.,  was 
probably  original  with  him.10  We  notice  that,  as  the 
text  stands,  Stichus  remains  on  the  stage  after  he  has 
been  dismissed,  and  Epignomus  waits  awkwardly  through 
the  entire  monologue  of  Stichus  (11.  436-453).  If  11. 
419-453  were  cut  out,  the  transition  would  be  perfectly 
easy,  and  Epignomus  would  be  on  the  stage  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  scene.  In  other  words,  11.  419-453  are 
a  necessary  preliminary  to  Act  Y.  as  it  stands,  but  would 
be  quite  superfluous  in  a  play  which  did  not  end  with 
a  merry-making  among  slaves. 

But  while  we  recognize  the  faulty  construction  of  the 
play,  we  are  not  justified  in  assuming  that  Act  Y.  was 
original  with  Plautus,11  or  even  that  its  presence  here 

8  Leo  in  NacJvr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  pp.  376  f. 
'Wilamowitz  in  Neue  Jahrb.  3    (1899),  p.  516. 

10  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  152;  tfocfc-r.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  383. 

11  Suss  in  Rhein.  Mus.  65   (1910),  p.  453,  notes  the  large  number 
of  Greek  details  in  this  act. 


RETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

is  due  to  contaminatio.  Leo  has  dissected  the  Stichus  12 
and  found  in  it  material  from  three  Greek  plays:  (A) 
a  play  on  the  theme  of  the  faithful  wives;  (B)  a  play 
with  a  parasite  as  its  central  figure;  (C)  a  play  furnish- 
ing material  for  the  banquet-scene.  It  is  improbable 
that  Plautus  used  so  many  different  sources  as  this. 
The  more  likely  theory  is  that  a  single  original,  the 
AdelpJioe  of  Menander,  is  the  basis  of  the  Stichus,  but 
that  the  plot  has  been  disturbed  by  omissions,  alterations, 
and  additions.13  In  particular,  Plautus  seems  to  have 
changed  the  last  act,  perhaps,  as  Teuffel  suggested,14  sub- 
stituting a  slaves'  banquet 15  for  the  masters'  banquet  in 
the  original  play. 


The  Stichus  is  unique  in  showing  evidences  of  re- 
tractatio  in  the  names  of  the  characters.  The  elder  of 
the  two  sisters  appears  in  the  text  of  both  A  and  P 
(11.  247,  331)  as  Panegyris,  and  the  same  name  occurs 
in  the  scene-heading  of  II.,  2,  in  A  and  in  P,  and  in  the 
heading  of  I.,  1  in  P.  A,  on  the  contrary,  gives  her  name 
as  Philumena  in  the  scene-heading  of  I.,  1.  The  name 
of  the  other  sister  does  not  occur  in  the  text,  but  is  given 
in  the  scene-heading  of  I.,  1  as  Pam,phila  in  A,  and  as 
Pinacium  in  P.  A  recent  study  of  the  scene-headings  in 
the  manuscripts  of  Plautus  16  has  made  it  evident  that 

12  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,   pp.  381  ff. 

13  Sclianz,  Rom.  Literaturgesch.  I.,  I3,  p.  91. 

14Teuffel  in  Rhein.  Mus.   8    (1853),   pp.  39  f.    (=  Stud.  u.  Char.,2 
p.  342). 

15  The   slaves'   banquet   followed    Greek,   not   Roman   custom.     Cf; 
11.   446-448. 

16  H.  W.  Prescott  in  Harvard  Studies  9    (1898),  pp.  102-108.     Cf. 
Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  pp.    102  f. 


STICHUS  87 

the  names  of  the  characters  as  they  appear  in  the  scene- 
headings,  do  not  belong  to  the  direct  tradition  of  the 
Palatine  manuscripts,  but  were  at  some  period  filled  in 
from  the  text.  So  the  form  Pinacium  (which  is  appar- 
ently due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  1.  284)"  has  no 
authority,  and  the  only  evidence  to  be  considered  is  that 
of  P  and  A  in  the  text,  and  of  A  in  the  scene-headings. 
From  this  evidence  we  may  infer  that  Panegyris  was  the 
original  name  of  the  elder  sister,  and  that  the  change  to 
Philumena  was  made  for  a  later  production.  As  to 
Pamphila,  there  may  be  some  doubt.  Since  this  sister 
is  nowhere  named  in  the  text,  there  is  no  direct  evidence 
against  the  name,  but  it  is  open  to  suspicion,  because  it 
appears  in  company  with  Philumena  in  A. 


PAN.     Credo  ego  miseram   fuisse  Penelopam, 
Sorer,  suo  ex  animo,  quae  tam  diu  uidua 

Viro    suo   caruit:    nam   nos   eius   animum  2b 

De  nostris  factis  noscimus,  quarum  uiri  hinc  apsunt, 
tQuorumque   nos   negotiis   apsentum,   ita  ut  aequomst, 
Sollfcitae  noctes  e"t  dies,  soror,  sumus  semper.  5 

PA.     Nostrum   6fncium   nos   facere    aequomst: 
Neque  fd  magis  facimus  quam  nos  monet  pietas. 
Sed   hie,   me"a  soror,   adsidedum:    multa  uolo  tecum  7b 

Loqui   de   re   tuiri      <PAN.>   Salue"ne,    amabo? 

PA<N>.     Spero  quidem  et  uol6.     sed  hoc,  soror,  crucior: 

Patr^m  tuom   meumque  adeo,  unice  qui  unus  10.    11 

Ciulbus   ex  omnibus   probus  perhib^tur, 

Eum  nunc  inprobl  uiri  officio  uti,  13.     14 

Virls  qui  tantas  aps6ntibus  nostris  15 

Facit   Iniurias   inm^rito 
Nosque    db   eis    abducere   uolt. 

Haec   r6s   uitae   me,    soror,    saturant, 

Haec  mlhi   diuidiae  et  se"nio  sunt. 

PA<^N.>    Ne  lacruma,  soror,  neu  tuo  id  animo  20 

Fac  quod  tibi   [tuos]    pater  facere"  minatur. 

Spes   e"st  eum  melius   facturum. 


88  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

Noui   6go   illuin:    ioculo   istae"c  dicit: 

Neque  ille"  sibi  mereat  Pe"rsarum 

Montis   qui  esse   aurei   pgrhibentur,  25 

Vt    istuc   faciat   quod  tti   metuis. 

Tamen   si  faciat  minume  inasci 
Decet:    n6que  id  immerito   eue"niet. 

Nam  uiri  nostri  domo  ut  abierunt, 

Hie   te"rtius<t>    annus —  <PA.>    Ita   tit   memoras.  30 

<PAN.>    Quom   ipsi   interea   uiuant,   ualeant, 
Vbi  sint,   quid  agant,   ecquid  agant, 

Neque    participant   nos   neque    redeunt. 

<PA.>     An  id  doles,  soror,  quia  illi  suom  Sfficium 

Non  c6lunt,  quom  tu  tuom  facis?     PAN.    Ita  pol.        35.  36 

PA.    Tace  sis:   caue  sis  audiam  ego  istuc 
Posthac  ex  te.     PAN.    Nam  quid  iam? 

PA.    Quia  pol  meo  animo  omnis  sapientis 

Suom  offioium  aequomst   colere  e"t   facere.  40 

Qu'am  ob  rem  e"go  te  hoc,  soror,  tarn  etsi's  maior, 

Moneo   tit  tuom  memineris   6fficium: 

Et  si   Illi   improbi   sint   atque    aliter 
tNos  faciant  quam  aequomst,   tarn  pol 

tNequid   magis  sit  omnibus   obnixe   opibus  45 

Nostrum   6fl&cium  meminisse   decet. 

PAN.    Placet:   taceo.     PA.     At  memineris  facito. 
(<PAN.>    Nolo  e"go,  soror,  me  cr6di  esse  inmemorein  uiri: 
Neque  ille  e6s  honores  mihi  quos  habuit  pe"rdidit. 
Nam  p6l  mihi  grata  acc6ptaque  huiust  benignitas:  50 

Et   me"   quidem   haec  condicio   nunc   non   pae"nitet 
Nequ^st  quor   [non]   studeam  has  ntiptias  mutarier. 
Vertim  postremo  in  patris   potestatest  situm: 
Faciendum  id  nobis  qu6d  parentes  imperant. 
<PA.>    Scio  atque  in  cogitando  maerore  atigeor:  55 

Nam  pr6pe  modum  iam  ost6ndit  suam  sent6ntiam. 
<PAN.>    Igitur   quaeramus  n6bis  quid  facto   tisus  sit.) 

48-57.  This  passage  was  one  of  the  first  in  Plautus 
to  be  suspected  of  dittography.  It  gives,  in  briefer  form 
and  in  dialogue-verse,  the  substance  of  the  preceding 
canticum.  It  must  therefore  be  considered  a  variant 
for  the  lyrical  passage,  probably  introduced  in  order  to 
dispense  with  the  musical  accompaniment.  The  author 


STICHUS  89 

seems  to  have  contented  himself  with  presenting  the  gen- 
eral situation  of  11.  1-47,  without  attempting  to  explain 
it  in  detail  (there  is  no  direct  statement,  e.  g.,  of  the 
father's  plan  to  give  his  daughters  in  marriage  again). 
On  the  other  hand,  he  has  borrowed  the  idea  of  11.  53, 
57  from  the  following  scene  (11.  68  ff.). 

A  omits  48-57. 


<AN.>    Principium  ego   quo    pacto   cum   illis   accipiam,   id   rati6- 

cinor :  75 

Vtrum  ego   perplexim  lacessam  oratione  ad  hlinc  modum, 
Quasi    numquam   quicquam   adeo   adsimulem,    an   quasi    quid    in- 

daudluerim 

Eas  in  se  meruisse  culpam:   an  p6tius  temptem  Igniter 
An  minacite'r.  scio  litis  f6re:    ego  meas  noui  6ptume. 
Si  manere  hie  s6se  malint  p6tius  quam  alio  nubere,  80 

N6n  faciam:  quid  mi  6pust  decurso  aetatis  spatio  cum  <m>eis 
G6rere  bellum,  quom  nil  quam  ofo  rem  id  faciam  me  ruisse 

arbitror? 

Minume:  nolo  turbos,  sed  hoc  mihi  6ptumum  factu  arbitror, 
Sic  faciam:  adsimulabo  quasi  quam  culpiam  in  sese  admlserint: 
P6rplexabilit6r  earum  hodie  pe"rpauefaciam  p6ctora.  85 

P6stid  tagam  igitur  delnde  ut  animus  m6us  erit  faciam  palam. 
Mtilta  scio  faciunda  uerba:   ibo  Intro,    sed  apertast  foris. 

75-83.  The  order  of  these  verses  is  confused  in  P, 
and  the  whole  passage  is  full  of  difficulties.  Langen  17 
notes  the  peculiar  use  of  perplexim  (1.  76),  which  must 
refer  only  to  quasi  quid  indaudiverim  Eas  in  se  meruisse 
culpam  (11.  77  f.),  and  not  to  quasi  numquam  quicquam 
adsimulem  (1.  77)  ;  the  unusual  construction  eas  in  se 
meruisse  culpam  (1.  78)  ;  the  position  of  potius  in  the 
first  instead  of  the  second  alternative  clause  (11.  78  ff.)  ; 

11  Langen,  Beitrage  zur  Kritik  u.  Erklarung  des  Plautus,  Leipzig, 
1880,  pp.   147  ff. 


90  RETRACT ATIO  IN  PLAUTUS 

and  the  adverb  minaciter  (1.  79),  not  found  elsewhere 
in  Plautus.  Langen  rejected  altogether  about  one- third 
of  11.  75-79,  and  rearranged  the  rest;  Leo  1S  thought  that 
1.  79  was  an  interpolation,  and  leniter  (1.  78)  a  corruption 
for  saeviter. 

The  large  number  of  repetitions  from  the  verses  imme- 
diately preceding  and  following  is  noticeable  also;  76 
perplexim  (a  very  rare  form),  cf.  85  perplexabiliter ; 
77  adsimulem,  cf.  84  adsimulabo;  77  quasi  quid  indau- 
diverim  Eas  in  se  meruisse  culpam,  cf.  84  quasi  quam 
culpam  in  sese  admiserint;  79  ego  meas  novi  optume,  cf. 
73  novi  ego  nostros;  81  non  faciam,  cf.  84  sic  faciam. 

The  content  of  the  verses  does  not  in  itself  suggest  re- 
tractatio,  but  the  confusion  in  the  manuscripts,  combined 
with  the  many  irregularities  in  construction,  makes  one 
suspect  that  11.  75-83  (or  at  least  75-79)  are  by  a  later 
hand. 

A  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
P   has   the  order:    80-83;    75-79;    70-74. 


GE.    Famem   ego  fui&se  sftspicor   matrem   mihi:  155 

Nam  postquam  natus  sum,  satur  numquam  fui. 

Neque  qulsquam  melius  referet  matri  gratiam, 

(Quam   ego   matri   meae   refero    inuitissumus. ) 

Neque  rettulit  quam  ego  refero  meae  matrf  Fami.  158b 

157  ff.     There  are  here,  as  Seyffert  recognized/9  two 
versions : 

(1)      157    Neque   quisquam   melius    referet    matri    gratiam 
158*  Quam    ego    matri    meae    refero    imdtissimus ; 

18  Leo,  Xachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1895,  p.  420,  n.  3;   Ed.    (1890).  ad  loc.; 
Wachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  377. 

"Seyffert,  Studia  Plautina,  Berlin,  1874,  p.  11,  n.  10. 


STICIIUS  Dl 

(2)      157    Neque  quisquam  melius  referet  matri  gratiam 

158b  Neque  rettulit  quam  ego  refero  meae  matri  Fami. 

Of  the  two  forms  of  the  second  line,  158b  has  most  often 
been  taken  as  the  genuine.  It  is  less  awkward  than  158a, 
and  the  citation  by  Charisius  of  fami  in  the  dative,  from 
the  Stichus  of  Plautus,  proves  that  158b  occurred  in  his 
sources,  and  that  Charisius  himself,  writing  in  the  fourth 
century  A.  D.,  regarded  it  as  genuine. 

A  has  157,  158a — i.  e.,  preserves  the  first  line  of  the  couplet,  and 
the  substitute  verse  for  the  second. 

P  omits  157,  but  has  158a,  158b  —  i.  e.,  omits  the  first  line  of  the 
couplet,  but  preserves  both  versions  of  the  second  line. 


Nam  ilia  me<d>  in  aluo  menses  gestauit  deeeni:  159 

At  ego  illam  in  aluo  gesto  plus  annos  decem.  160 

Atque  ilia  puerum  me  gestauit  paruolum, 

Quo   minus    laboris   cepisse    illam    existumo: 

Ego  nan  pausillulam  in  utero  gesto  famem, 

Veruna  herele  multo  maxumam  et   grauissumam. 

Vteri   dolores    tmihi   oboriuntur   cotidie:  165 

Sed  matrem  parere  nequeo  nee  quid  agam  scio. 

160  ff.  The  position  of  11.  165-166,  between  11.  160, 
161  in  A,  may  perhaps  indicate  a  shortening  by  the 
omission  of  11.  161-164.20 

A  places   165,    166  after   160. 

P  has  the  verses  in  proper  order. 


tAuditaui  saepe  hoc  uolgo  dicier,  167 

Solere   elephantum    grauidam    perpetuos    decem 

Esse  annos:  eius  ex  semine  haec  certost  fames: 

Nam   idm  complures    annos    utero   haeret   meo.  170 

167-170.     The  parasite's  account  of  himself  and  his 

20  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  55. 


92  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

mother  comes  to  a  suitable  close  in  1.  166.  Then  11.  167- 
170  add  a  new  and  hardly  consistent  thought,  and  1.  170 
is  particularly  objectionable  because  complures  annos 
repeats,  in  weaker  form,  the  plus  annos  decem  of  1.  160. 
It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  these  verses  are  a  later  in- 
sertion,21 made  in  order  to  expand  the  coarse  wit  of  the 
passage. 

The  passage  appears  in  both  A  and  P. 


Gelasimo  nomen  mlhi  indidit  paru6  pater,  174 

Quia   inde  iam  £  pausillo  puero  ridicultis   fui.  175 

Proptgr  pauperiem  hoc  adeo  nomen  re"pperi, 

Eo  qula  paupertas  fe"cit  ridiculus  forem: 

Nam  ilia  artis  omnis  pe"rdocet,  ubi  quern  attigit. 

1 74  if-  Gelasimus  gives  two  explanations  for  his 
name:  (1)  that  his  father  gave  it  to  him  because  he  was  a 
droll  child;  (2)  that  he  received  the  name  because 
poverty  taught  him  to  be  witty.  A  connection  between 
these  two  thoughts,22  though  possible,  is  rather  strained, 
and  it  seems  more  likely  that  we  have  here  two  parallel 
versions:  (1)  11.  174-175;  (2)  11.  176-178. 

A  and  P  both  contain  the  whole  passage,  in  the  order:  174,  176, 
175,  177,  178. 


Dicam  auctionis  catisam,   ut  damno  gaudeant —  207 

Nam  curiosus  ne"most  quin  sit  maleuolus — : 
[Ipse  e"gomet  quam  ob  rem  |  auctionem  praeclicem:]  208b 

Damna  e"uenerunt  maxuma  miser6  mihi. 

208*.     The  verse  is  impossible  after  dicam  auctionis 

21Langen,   Plant.    Stud.,    p.    372;    Leo,    JVoc/w.    Gott.    Ges.    1902, 
p.  379. 

28  Cf.  Langen,  Plcwt.  Stud.,  p.  76. 


STICHUS  93 

causam   (1.  207),  but  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  an 
interpolation,  explaining  1.  207,  rather  than  as  retractatio. 

A  omits  208b. 


Haec  ue*niisse  iam  opus  est  quantum  potest,  232 

Vt  decumam  piartem   |   Herculi  polluceam.  233.  234 


These  verses  occur  in  A  after  208a  as  well 
as  in  their  proper  place.  The  repetition  may  indicate 
that  the  scene  was  to  be  shortened  by  omitting  11.  209- 
231.23 

A    (which  omits  208b)    inserts  232,  233  between  208a  and  209. 
P  has  208%  208b,  209  ff. 


ST.    lam  hercle  e"go  per  hortum  ad  amloam  transibo1  meam,      437 

Mi  hanc   6ccupatum   nfictem:    eadem   symbolam 

Dabo  e"t  iubebo  ad  Sa[n]garinum  cenam  coqui. 

Aut  6gomet  ibo  atque  6psonabo  ops6nium.  440 

Sa[n]garinus  scio  iam  hie  aderit  cum  domin6  suo 

Seru6s  homo:   qui  <ni>s<i  te">m<p>er<i  a>d  cenam  meat, 

Adu6rsitores  p6l  cum  uerberibtis  decet 

Dari,   uti   eum  uerberabundum   abducant   domum. 

Parata  res  faciiam  tit  sit.     egomet  m6  moror.  445 

Atque  id   ne   uos  mire'mini,   hominis  sSruolos 

Potare,  amare  atque  fid  cenam  condlcere: 

Licet  ha4c  Athenis  n6bis.    sed  quom  c6gito, 

Potitis  quam  inuidiam  inu4niam,   est  etiam  hie  dstium 

Aliud  posticum  nostrarum  harunc  a^dium:  450a 

[Postlcam   partem  magis  utuntur   a^dium.] 

Ea  ibo  6bsonatum  atque  eddem  referam  ops6nium:  451 

Per   h6rtum  utroque   c^mmeatus    cCntinet. 

Ite  hac  seeundum  u6smet:  ego  hunc  Iacer6  diem. 

441-445'     The  end  of  the  scene  is  unduly  protracted, 
and  Stichus  announces  his  departure  three  times  (11.  440, 

23  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  55;   Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


94  EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

445,  453)  before  he  finally  leaves  the  stage.  His  impa- 
tience with  the  delay  of  Sagarinus,  too,  is  quite  out  of 
place  here.  Baier 24  and  Leo 25  are  probably  right  in 
thinking  that  this  motif  was  taken  over  from  11.  641- 
648,  where  it  is  much  more  appropriate,  and  that  11. 
441-445  were  inserted  at  the  time  of  the  later  production. 

P   omits   441-445. 


GrE.    Quando  quidem  tu  ad  in6  non  uis  promittere,  483 

(Sed  quoniam  nil  process!   sat  ego   hac,  lero 
Apertiore   magis   uia:    ita   plane   loquar.)  485 

483-485.  The  first  of  these  three  lines  (483),  begin- 
ning quando  quidem,  and  the  last  two  (484-485),  be- 
ginning sed  quoniam,  are  undoubtedly  parallel  versions. 
Of  the  two  versions,  the  second  (11.  484-485)  is  the  more 
subtle,  and  therefore  probably  the  genuine. 

P  omits   484-485. 


ST.     (Prom    tu    lauare    propera.     SA.     Lautus    sum.     ST.     6p- 

tume :  668 

Sequere    ergo    |    hac    me    |    Intro.    SA.    Ego    uer6    sequor.) 
Volo   eluamus  hodie:    peregrina  omnia  670 

Relinque:   Athenas  nune  colamus:    s^quere  me. 
<SA.>    Sequor  6t  domum  redetindi  principium  placet: 
Bona  scaeua  strenaque  obuiam  occessit  mihi. 

668  ff.  The  close  of  this  scene  seems  to  have  been 
shortened  by  the  substitution  of  11.  668-669  for  11. 
670-673. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  deest  1  sheet  =  38  11. 

24  Baier,  De  Plauti  Fab.  Recenss.,  pp.   123  f. 
^Leo  in  yacht:  Gtitt.  Ges.  1902,  p.  379. 


STICHUS  95 

A    deest    648-681=34    11.  +  2    scene-headings     (=4    11.).      Total, 

38  11. 
Therefore  A  probably  had  668,  669. 


<SA.>    Tibi    propino.     decumum    a    fonte    tibi    tute    inde,    si    sa- 

pis.  708 

Bene  uos:   bene  nos:   bene  te:  bene  me:  be"ne  nostram  etiam  Ste- 

phanium. 
Bibe[s],    si    bibis.     ST.    Non    mora    erit    apud    me.     SA.    Mepol 

conuiui   sat   est:          710 

Modo  nostra  hue  arnica  accedat:   id  abest,  aliud  nil  abest. 
<ST.>    Lepide  hoc  actumst.     tibi  propino  cantharam.     <SA.>    Vi- 

num  tu  habes: 
>iimis    uellem   taliquid    pulpamenti.     ST.    Si    horum    quae    adsunt 

paenitet, 

Nil    est.     tene    aquam.     SA.    M^lius    dicis:    nil    moror    cuppecLia. 
Bibe,    tibicen:     age    siquid    agis:     bibendum    hercle    hoc    est:     n6 

nega.  715 

710-711.  These  verses  disturb  the  connection  equally 
here  and  in  the  position  to  which  Ritschl  transposed 
them  (after  1.  735).  Langen26  noted  also  that  the  use 
of  mora  (1.  710)  in  the  sense  of  "  delay "  was  un- 
Plautine.  The  couplet  seems  to  be  introduced  for  the 
purpose  of  shortening  the  scene.27 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  tezt. 
A   deest  709   to  end  of  play. 

The  Stichus  shows  no  extensive  changes  due  to  re- 
iractatio,  but  there  are  traces  of  slight  alterations  all 
through  the  play,  from  the  name  of  the  elder  sister  at 
the  beginning  to  a  proposed  shortening  of  V.,  4.  The 
changes  seem  to  have  affected  especially  the  third  scene 
of  the  first  act.  There  are  a  number  of  passages  showing 
parallel  versions,  the  second  version  in  one  case  (11.  48- 
57)  evidently  being  intended  to  dispense  with  musical 

26  Langen,  Beitrage,  pp.   171  ff. 

27  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad.  loc.;  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.,  1902,  p.  378. 


96 


RETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


accompaniment.  A  shortened  version  of  the  close  of  V., 
2  is  given,  and  a  couplet  (11.  710-711)  is  inserted  to 
shorten  V.,  4.  On  the  other  hand,  the  revisers  seem  to 
have  made  some  trivial  additions  to  the  original  thought 
(11.  167-170;  441-445).28 

The  evidence  of  the  Stichus  is  particularly  valuable 
because  we  can  consult  both  families  of  manuscripts  for 
nearly  all  the  questionable  passages.  Only  in  the  case 
of  11.  710,  711  is  it  absolutely  impossible  to  tell  what  A 
contained;  for  calculation  makes  it  probable  that  11.  668, 
669  appeared  on  a  lost  page  of  A.  This  passage, 
then,  would  belong  in  the  same  class  with  11.  174- 
178,  and  with  a  less  certain  case  of  retractatio  (11. 
167-170),  where  A  and  P  have  exactly  the  same  amount 
of  text.  Both  P  and  A  have  11.  75-83,  though  the  lines 
appear  in  different  order;  and  the  mixture  in  11.  157  ff. 
indicates  that  both  the  Plautine  and  the  substitute  version 
were  at  one  period  represented  in  both  families  of  manu- 
scripts. There  is  one  place  (11.  48-57)  in  which  P  gives 
a  second  version  not  preserved  in  A,  and  several  cases 
(11.  441-445  ;  483-485  ;  160  ff. ;  232  f.)  in  which  A  shows 
more  evidence  of  retractatio  than  P.  The  evidence  of 
the  Stichus,  therefore,  is  decidedly  against  the  theory 
that  A  is  the  purer  text. 

28  In  addition  to  the  passages  discussed  in  detail,  the  following 
lines  have  been  suspected:  84,  118-120,  121-125,  135,  179-180,  225, 
294,  321,  330,  387,  425-435,  427-429,  450b,  473-482,  535,  555,  590- 
591,  681,  684,  746-747. 

Of  these  lines,  the  evidence  of  A  is  lacking  for  555,  681.  746-747; 
A  omits  450b;  P  omits  387,  427-429,  535,  590-591;  A  and  P  both 
have  84,  118-120,  121-125,  135,  179-180,  225,  294,  321,  330,  425- 
435  (except  that  P  omits  427-429),  473-482,  684. 

The  following  lines  show  variations  of  a  word  or  phrase:  76  f., 
90,  163,  166,  189,  202,  237,  253  f.,  255,  262  f.,  282,  342,  350,  373, 
374-376,  390  f.,  586,  594,  632  f.,  640,  688. 


CHAPTER  V. 
TRINUMMUS 

The  Trinummus  of  Plautus  is  translated,  so  the  pro- 
logue tells  us,  from  the  ®rj<ravpd<>  of  Philemon.  It  is 
a  comedy  without  female  parts  (except  for  the  two 
abstractions  who  speak  the  prologue),  and  without  the 
erotic  element  which  is  so  prominent  in  other  plays  of 
Plautus.  When  the  play  opens,  the  old  man  Charmides 
has  gone  off  on  a  business  voyage,  leaving  his  daughter 
and  his  dissolute  son  in  the  care  of  his  friend  Callicles, 
with  special  instructions  that  a  treasure  buried  in  nis 
house  be  kept  intact  for  the  daughter's  dowry.  In  the 
meantime,  the  son,  Lesbonicus,  goes  from  bad  to  worse,  and 
finally  advertises  his  father's  house  for  sale.  In  order 
to  preserve  the  treasure  without  betraying  the  secret, 
Callicles  buys  the  house.  Lysiteles,  a  young  man  of 
exemplary  character  and  good  family,  and  a  devoted 
friend  of  Lesbonicus,  now  sues  for  the  daughter's  hand, 
and  Callicles  feels  in  duty  bound  to  produce  the  treasure. 
So  a  rogue  is  hired  to  play  the  part  of  a  messenger  from 
Charmides,  to  bring  forged  letters  for  Lesbonicus  and 
Callicles,  and  a  sum  of  money  to  serve  as  the  daughter's 
dowry.  Unfortunately  for  the  success  of  the  scheme, 
Charmides  arrives  unexpectedly,  and  meets  the  supposed 
messenger  in  front  of  his  own  house.  But  matters  are 
explained,  Lysiteles  receives  both  bride  and  dower,  and 
Lesbonicus  is  pardoned,  on  condition  that  he  take  the 
daughter  of  Callicles  as  his  wife. 


97 


98  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

CA.     Quid  uenis?  67 

ME.    Malis  te  ut  uerbis  multis  multum  obiurigem. 
CA.    Men?     ME.    Numquis    est    Me    alms    praeter    me    atque    te? 
CA.    Nemost.     ME.    Quid   tu   igitur    rogitas   tene   obiurigem?     70 
Nisi  tu  me  mihimet  censes  dicturum  male. 

Nam  si  in  te  aegrotant  artes  antiqua6  tuae  72a 

LSin  inimutare  uls  ingenium  m6ribus]  72b 

(Aut  si  demutant  m6res  ingenium  tuom 
Neque  eos  antiques  seruas,  ast  captas  nouos,) 

Omnibus   amicis  niorbum   tu   incuti6s   grauem,  75 

Vt  te  uidere  audireque  aegroti  sient. 

72  ff.  Most  editors  have  taken  1.  72b  as  an  explanation 
of  1.  73,  or  an  adscript  parallel  to  it.  But  1.  73  is  per- 
fectly clear  without  explanation,  and  1.  72 b  is  too  closely 
related  to  it  in  thought  and  phrasing  to  be  merely  an 
accidental  parallel.  We  are  therefore  led  to  suspect 
the  hand  of  the  retractator.  The  manuscript-reading  sin 
can  not  stand,  since  the  strongly  adversative  idea  which 
sin  demands  is  lacking ;  and  Ritschl's  1  emendation  sive 
is  therefore  probably  to  be  accepted.  But  Ritschl  him- 
self observed  that  the  Plautine  conjunction  was  not  sive, 
but  aut  si  (the  form  which  we  actually  find  in  1.  74), 
and  this  fact  supports  the  other  evidence  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  line.  The  next  two  lines  (73-74) 
have  been  regarded  as  due  to  dittography.  But  they  can 
riot  be  simply  an  alternative  version  of  1.  72a,  for  the 
first  words  (aut  si)  are  impossible  at  the  beginning  of 
a  sentence.  Ritschl  noted  the  irregular  use  of  the  word 
mores — in  the  sense  of  "temperament "  instead  of  "  the 
(proverbially  corrupt)  morals  of  the  day,"  as  elsewhere 
in  Plautus  (cf.  11.  28  ff.,  1037,  1045,  etc.).  But  this 
criticism  applies  only  to  1.  74.  Without  this  addition, 

1  Ritschl,    De    Interpolation    Trinummi    Plautinae,    Bonn,     1844 
(=  Parerga,  pp.  513  ff.). 


TRINUMMUS 


99 


1.  73  is  unobjectionable;  the  conjunction  aut  si  is  Plau- 
tine,  and  mores  has  its  customary  meaning.  Therefore 
it  seems  probable  that  11.  72,b  74  were  inserted  as  a  more 
emphatic  substitute  for  1.  73. 


P  has  the  whole  passage. 
A  omits  72h. 


Nil   est   profeeto   stultius   neque   stolidius 

Neque  mendaciloquitis  neque  argutum  magis  200 

Neque   confidentiloquius   neque    peiiurius 

Quam  urbani  adsidui  ciues  quos   scurras  uocant. 

200.  One  would  not  object  so  much  to  the  repetition 
in  this  passage,  were  it  not  that  mendaci-loquius  antici- 
pates the  compound  confidenti-loquius  in  the  next  verse, 
and  that  the  circumlocution  with  magis  interrupts  the 
series  of  simple  comparatives.2  It  seems  possible  that 
the  verse  was  intended  as  a  substitute  for  1.  201. 

The  line  occurs  in  both  A  and  P,  but  in  A  has  the  reading  adeo 
<irgiitum,  in  P  argutum  magis. 


<PH.>    Quf    homo   cum    animo   inde    ab    ineunte    aetate   depugnat 

suo,  305 

Vtrum  itane  ease  mauelit  ut  eum  animus  aequom  censeat, 
An  ita  potius  ut  parentis  eum  esse  et  cognati  uelint: 
Si  animus  hominem  p6pulit,  actumst,  animo  seruit,  non  sibi: 
Si  ipse  animum  pepulft,  dum  uiuit,  uictor  uictorum  duet. 
TCi    si    animum    uicisti    potius    quam    animus    te,    est    quod   gau- 

deas.  310 

Nimio  satiust  ut  opust  te  ita  esse  quam  ut  anim6  lubet. 
( Qui  animum  uincunt  quam  quos  animus  semper  probior6s  cluent. ) 

305-312.     Philto  is  delivering  a  sermon  on  the  text, 
-J.  Brix,  Ed.    (1879),  ad  loc. 


100  EETRACTATIO    I1T    PLATJTUS 

"  Better  is  lie  that  ruleth  his  spirit."  He  generalizes 
broadly  (11.  305-309)  and  then  makes  a  personal  appli- 
cation to  the  case  of  Lysiteles  (1.  310).  After  this  he 
gives  a  weaker  turn  to  the  last  statement  (1.  311),  and 
then  returns  to  generalization  (1.  312),  repeating  much 
of  the  phrasing  of  1.  310.3  Bergk  4  was  probably  right 
in  thinking  that  the  last  two  lines  were  an  alternative 
version  for  11.  305-310. 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 


[PH.]    ta    probust,    quern    pae"nitet    quam    prdbus    sit    et    frugf 

bonae :  320 

Qui  Ipsus  sibi  satis  placet,  nee  pr6bus  est  nee  frugi  bonae: 
Qui   ipsus  se  contemnit,   in   eost  indoles   industriae: 
Be"nefacta  benefactis  aliis  pe"rtegito,  ne  pgrpluant. 


Without  1.  322,  the  speech  of  Philto  makes  a 
very  neat  antithesis  (11.  320-321),  followed  by  a  line  of 
practical  application  (1.  323).  The  line  which  inter- 
venes (322)  merely  repeats  1.  320,  and  is  especially 
disturbing  because  it  returns  to  the  first  half  of  the  con- 
trast after  the  second  is  finished.5 

The  line  occurs  in  both  A  and  P. 


PH.    Qu6i[us]  egestate"m  tolerare  uis?  loquere  audacte"r  patri.    358 

<LY.>    L§sbonico   huic   adulescenti,   Charmid<a>i   fflio, 

Qui    lllic    habitat.     PH.    Quin    comedit    qu6d    fuit,     quod    n6n 

fuit?  360 

<LY.>    Ne    6pprobra,    pater:    multa    eueniunt    h6mini    quae    uolt. 

qua6    neuolt. 
<PH.>    M6ntire   edepol,  gnate,   atque  id  nunc   facis  haud   consue- 

tfidine. 

3Ritschl,  Parerg.,  pp.  522  ff. 

4  Bergk  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Alt.  1848,  coll.  11371    (=0pusc.  i.,  p.  17). 

BLangen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  pp.  374  f. 


TBINUMMUS  101 

Nam  sapiens  quide"m  pol  ipsus  fingit  fortunam  sibi: 

E6  non  multa  quag  neuolt  eugniunt,  nisi  fict6r  malust. 

<LY.>   Multa  illi  opera  opust  ficturae  qul  se  fictorgm.  probum    365 

Vltae  agundae  esse  e"xpetit:    sed  hie  admodum  adulesc&itulust. 

<PH.>   Non   aetate,   ue"rum   ingenio   apiscitur   sapi&itia. 

Sapienti   aetas   condimentum,    tsapiens   aetati   cibust. 

Agedum   eloquere,   quid   dare  illi  nunc   uis?     LY.    Nil   quicquam, 

pater : 
Tfi  modo  ne  me  pr6hibeas  accipere,  siquid  de"t  mihi.  370 

361  ff.     The  insertion  of  1.  369  after  1.  361  probably 
indicates  the  omission  of  the  moralizing  in  11.  362-368. 6 

A   inserts   369   after   361. 
P  inserts  369,  368  after  361. 


PH.    I   hac,   Lesbonice,   me'cum,    ut  coram   nuptiis  580 

Dies  c6nstituiatur :  eadem  haec  confirmabimus. 
<LE.>    tTu  istuc  cura  quod  iussi:   ego  iam  hie  ero. 
Die  Callicli  me  ut  c6nueniat.     ST.    Quin  tu  i  modo. 
LE.    De  dote  ut  uideat  quid  <(o>pus  sit  facto.     ST.    I  modo. 
<LE.>   Nam    ce"rtumst    sine    dote    ha<u>d    dare.     ST.    Quin    tu   1 

modo.  585 

LE.    Neque  enim  illi  damno  umquam  e*sse  patiar  —  ST.    AM  modo. 
<LE.>    Meam   n6glegentiam.     ST.    t   modo    to   pater 
LE.    AequOm    uidetur   quin   quod    peccarim  —  ST.    1   modo. 
LE.    Potissumum  mihi  id  6psit.     ST.    I  modo.     LE.    6  pater, 
Entimquam  aspiciam  te?    ST.    i  modo,  i  modo,  I  modo. 

582.  After  Lesbonicus  has  finally  uttered  the  long- 
delayed  spondeo  which  betroths  his  sister  to  Lysiteles, 
and  Philto  has  left  the  stage,  Lesbonicus  remains  and 
resumes  the  discussion  of  the  dowry — to  the  great  disgust 
of  Stasimus.  It  is  possible  that  the  audience  may  have 
grown  impatient  too,  and  that  consequently  1.  582  was 

•Lindsay  in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  p.  27;  cf.  Anc.  Edd., 
p.  47;  Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


102  EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

substituted    for    the    original    ending    of    the    scene    (11. 
583-601).7 


A  deest  568-636. 


ftast  amor  ballista  ut  iacitur:  nil  sic  celerest  neque  uolat:        668 
Atque   is   mores   hominum  moros   6t  morosos  6fficit. 
Minus  placet  magis  quod  suadetur :  qu6d  dissuadettir  placet.       670 
Quom  inopiast,  cupias:  quando  eius  copiast,  turn  non  uelis. 
(file  qui  aspellit,  is  compellit:   ille  qui  consuade"t,  uetat.) 

672.  The  suggestion  of  Bergk,8  that  1.  672  is  a  second 
version  of  1.  670,  has  been  followed  by  most  editors. 
Except  for  the  fact  that  1.  672  has  a  personal  subject, 
the  thought  of  the  two  verses  is  the  same,  and  ille  (1. 
672)  must  twice  be  scanned  either  Ille  or  III'.9 

A  deest  672-735. 


ME.    Homo  cOnduoatur   aliquis  iam   quantum   potest.  765 

[Quasi  sit  peregrinus.     CA.    Quid  is  scit  facere  postea?] 
Is  homo  e"xornetur  graphice  in  peregrinum  modum: 
.   tlgn6ta  facies  quae"  non  uisitata  sit 

(Mendacilocum  aliquem.     CA.    Quid   is    [i]scit   facere   p6stea?) 
tFalsidicum,  confidentem.     CA.    Quid  turn  postea?  770 

765  ff.  Brix 10  was  probably  right  in  bracketing  1. 
766  as  an  interpolation.  Quasi  sit  peregrinus  seems  to 
be  merely  an  explanation  of  1.  767  in  peregrinum  modum, 
and  quid  is  scit  facere  postea?  is  apparently  borrowed 
from  1.  769  to  fill  out  the  line.  But  1.  769  presents  a 
reasonably  certain  case  of  retractatio.  The  objections 

'Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 

8  Bergk  in  Zeitschr.  /.  Alt.  1848,  col.  1141  (  =0pusc.  i.,  pp.  20  f.). 
9Cf.  Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  p.  376;  Niemeyer,  Ed.  (1907),  ad  loc. 
10Brix,  Ed.  (1879),  ad  loc.  (Brix  numbers  770). 


TEINUMMUS  103 

which  Brix  makes  to  quid  is  scit  facere  posted?  in  1.  766 
hold  equally  for  it  here:  the  question  could  properly  be 
asked  only  when  the  man  had  already  been  found  and 
his  ability  to  carry  out  the  scheme  was  under  discussion. 
(See  Pseud.  745  for  an  instance  of  scit  properly  used  in 
a  similar  situation.)  Plautus  uses  mendaci-locus  only 
here  and  in  Trin.  200  u  (where,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is 
also  suspicious).  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  of  falsi-dicus,  in  the  next  line,  and  it  is 
possible  that  the  new  compound  was  introduced  in  both 
places  (11.  200,  769)  for  the  sake  of  novelty. 

P  omits  769. 


[CA.]    Sed  epfstulas  quando  opsignatas  adferet,  788* 

[Sed  quom  obsignatas  attulerit  epistulas]  788b 

Nonne  arbitraris  ttim  adulescentem  anuli 
Paterni   signum  nosse? 


The  two  lines  are  unquestionably  variants,  the 
second  giving  the  idea  "  sealed  "  a  little  more  emphati- 
cally. The  scansion  attulerit  may  perhaps  be  explained 
as  the  lengthening  of  a  short  syllable  before  the  final 
metrum  of  the  line,12  but  it  is  at  all  events  sufficiently 
rare  to  throw  suspicion  on  the  line.13 

A  deest  774-834. 


ME.    In  hufus  modi  negotio  795 

Diem  sermone[m]   ter[r]ere  segnities  merast: 
Quamuis  sermones  pdssunt  longi  texier. 
Abi  a<d>  then[a]saurum  iam  confestim  clanculum. 

11  The  statement  is  based  on  a  collection  of  the  adjectives  in  Plau- 
tus made  by  the  Latin  Seminary  of  Bryn  Mawr  College,  1907-1908. 
13  Cf.   Lindsay,    Ed.    Capt.    (London,    1900),   Introd.,   p.   42. 
"Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  47;   Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


104  EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTTJS 

796,  797.  Here  again  we  have  two  lines  which  are 
very  similar  in  meaning.  Megaronides  might  be  allowed 
to  repeat  himself  if  he  were  not  at  that  very  moment 
doing  his  best  to  put  a  stop  to  the  conversation ;  but  as  it 
is,  it  seems  probable  that  1.  796  is  a  later  version,  which 
borrows  much  of  its  phrasing  from  11.  806  f. 

A  deest. 


CH.    Faciam  ita  ut  uis:    agedum,  nomen  tu6m  primum  memorS. 

mihi.  883 

<SY.>    Magnum    f  acinus    incipissis    pgtere.     CH.    Quid    ita?     SY. 

Qula,  pat<e>r[em], 

Si  ante  lucem  tire  occipias  £  meo  prime  n6mine,  885 

Concubium  sit  n6ctis   prius  quam  ad  p6stremum  peru6neris. 
CH.    6pus  tfactost  et  uiatico  ad  tuom  n6men,  ut  tu  pra4dicas. 
<SY.>   £st  minusculum  alterum  quasi  tiuxillum  uinarium. 
<CH.>    Quid  est  tibi  nomen,  adulescens?     SY.    Pax,  id  est  nom6n 

mihi: 

Hoc  cotidianu<m>st.     CH.    Edepol  n6men  nugat6rium:  890 

Quasi   dicas,   siquid  crediderim   tfbi,   *pax'   periisse   Ilico. 

889-891.  These  three  verses  appear  in  P  after  1.  937. 
Meier  14  transposed  them  to  their  present  position,  and 
altered  the  reading  of  1.  889  to  quid  illud  est  nomen? 
The  order  of  P  is  manifestly  impossible;  the  inquiry 
about  the  name  must  follow  directly  after  1.  882,  before 
Charmides  goes  on  to  ask  about  the  sycophant's  facta  et 
itinera  (11.  893  ff.).,  But  if  11.  889-891  are  preceded  by 
11.  883-888,  the  question  in  1.  889  should  be,  not  quid  est 
tibi  nomen?  but  quid  est  alterum  nomen?  It  is  possible 
that  the  stage-manager  of  the  Revival  used  only  11.  889- 
891,  substituting  quid  est  tibi  nomen?  for  a  question 
about  the  minusculum  alterum.15  If  this  was  the  case, 

14  M.  H.  E.  Meier,  Commentatio  de  Plauti  Trimnnmo,  Halle,  1845, 
pp.  7  f. 
18  Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 


TBESTUMMUS  105 

the  later  version  must  have  crowded  out  the  original  form 
of  the  line. 


P  has  889-891  after  937. 
A  deest  864-1044. 


SY.    Hanc  me  iussit  Le"sbonico  su6  gnato  dare  eplstulam        898 

6t  item  hanc  alteram  suo  amico  Callicli  iussit  dare. 

CH.    Mihi  quoque  edepol,   quom  hie   nug[ur]atur,  c6ntra  nugari 

lubet.  900 

\Hbi  ipse  erat?     SY.    Bene  re"m  gerebat.     OH.    6rgo  ubi?     SY.    In 

Seleucia. 
CH.    Ab  ipson  istas  accepisti?     SY.    E  manibus  dedit  mi  ipse  In 


901.  The  question  and  answer  of  1.  901  anticipate 
the  long  dialogue  (11.  928-947)  in  which  Charmides  asks 
his  own  whereabouts.  The  shorter  answer  is  really  the 
correct  one  (cf.  11.  112,  771),  but  is  for  that  very  reason 
the  less  likely  in  the  mouth  of  the  sycophant.  It  is  im- 
probable that  Charmides  would  ask  the  question  at  1.  901, 
and  then  devote  so  much  time  to  it  later,  or  that  he  would 
fail  to  comment  on  the  inconsistency  of  the  sycophant's 
two  answers.  It  is  much  more  likely  that  1.  901  repre- 
sents another  part  of  the  same  shortened  version  which 
we  find  in  11.  889-891. 

A  deest. 


CA.    Quid  hoc  hfc  clamoris  audio  ante  aedls  meas?  1093 

CH.    0   Callicles,   o   Callicles,   o    Callicles, 

Qualine  amico  me"a  commendaul  bona?  1095 

CA.    Probo  e"t  fideli  et  ffdo  et  cum  magna  fide: 

Et  salue  et  saluom  te  aduenisse  gaudeo. 

CH.    Credo  6mnia  istaec,  si  |  itast  ut  pra6dicas. 

Sed  qufs  istest  tuos  ornatus?     CA.    Ego  dicam  tibi: 

Thensaflrum  effodiebam  fntus  dotem  ffliae  1100 


106 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTTJS 


Tuae  quae"  daretur.     se"d  intus  narrabo  tibi 

Et  h6c  et  alia :  sequere.     OH.    Stasime.     ST.    Hem.     CH.    StrSnue 
Curre  In  Piraeu[u]m  atque   unum  curriculum  face. 
Videbis   iam  illic  nauem  qua  aduectf  sumus. 

Iube"to  Sa[n]garionem  quae  imperauerim  1105 

Curare  ut  efferantur,   et  tu  ito  simul. 
Solutu<m>st  portit6ri  iam  portorium. 
Nil    e"st   mora<e>.     cit<o>   ambula:    actutum   redi. 
ST.    Illic    sum    atque   hie   sum.     CA.    Sequere    tu    hiac    me    intr6. 

CH.      Sequor. 

1093  ff.  The  rapidity  with  which  this  scene  draws  to 
a  close  is  equal  to  that  of  certain  scenes  in  the  Persa. 
For  the  audience,  to  be  sure,  no  explanation  of  the 
motives  of  Callicles  was  necessary,  but  it  seems  incredible 
that  Charmides  should  rest  satisfied  with  the  simple 
assurance  of  11.  1096-1097.  Leo  16  is  probably  right  in 
thinking  that  P  gives  only  a  shortened  version  of  the 
scene,  although  we  cannot  assume,  as  Ritschl 17  did,  that 
the  passage  had  any  fuller  form  in  A.18 

A  deest  1079  to  end  of  play. 


ST.    Hie  meo  ero  amicu<s>  s6lus  firmus  re"stitit  1110 

Neque  de"mutauit  animum  de  firma  fide, 
Quamquam  labores  multos     ***** 
Sed  hie  tinus  ut  ego  suspicor,  seruat  fidem. 
fOb  rem  laborem  eum  e"go  cepisse  censeo. 

1110  ff.  There  seem  to  be  traces  of  two  versions  here: 
(1)  1110-1112;  (2)  1113-1114.  As  far  as  we  can  tell 
from  the  mutilated  text,  the  sense  of  the  two  passages  was 
about  the  same,  and  some  of  the  phrasing  is  repeated. 

18  Leo,  Ed.   (1896),  ad  loc. 

"Ritschl,  Ed.    (1848),  Praef.,  pp.  xxvf. 

1S  Studemund's  Apog.,  note  on  fol.  464v. 


TKINUMMUS 

A   deest. 

B    marks    a    lacuna    after    multos    (1112). 

The  abundance  of  sententiae  and  moral  reflections  in 
the  Trinummus  makes  the  play  a  difficult  one  for  the 
student  of  retractatio.  A  sententious  line  would  natur- 
ally invite  every  later  poet  to  try  to  turn  the  phrases 
a  little  more  neatly.  On  the  other  hand,  even  the  origi- 
nal author  might  he  open  to  the  same  temptation,  and 
might  add  to  a  pithy  sentence  another  in  slightly  differ- 
ent form.  Indeed,  wordiness  and  repetition  are  so  char- 
acteristic of  the  moralizing  style  that  it  is  frequently 
impossible  to  say  whether  a  given  line  is  an  extension 
by  Plautus  himself  or  by  a  later  author. 

The  suspicious  passages  are  extremely  limited  in  ex- 
tent, in  no  case  covering  more  than  half  a  dozen  lines, 
and  generally  not  more  than  one  or  two.  The  majority 
are  concentrated  in  certain  scenes,  especially  II. ,  2  and 
III.,  3.  Of  the  possible  variant  lines,  most  are  of  the 
moralizing  type:  200,  311-312,  322,  672.  Dittography 
also  seems  to  be  present  in  11.  796  f.,  1110  ff. ;  and  almost 
certainly  exists  in  11.  72  ff.,  769  f.,  788ab.  The  transpo- 
sition of  1.  369  seems  to  indicate  the  omission  of  a 
passage,  and  11.  582,  889-891,  901  are  probably  intended 
to  furnish  substitutes  for  lengthy  scenes.  It  is  probable 
that  at  11.  1093  ff.  only  the  shortened  version  is  pre- 
served.19 

18  The  following  lines  have  also  been  suspected:  6-7,  18-21,  60,  64, 
92,  93,  126,  206-209,  223  ff.,  231-232,  248-249,  263,  321,  368,  414-415, 
420-424,  427b,  470,  471,  527-528,  562-568,  587-589,  660  ff.,  702,  707- 
708,  756-762,  764,  792,  808-814,  816,  831,  852,  857-860,  872,  929  ff., 
980,  982,  1005,  1033,  1043-1045,  1053-1054,  1130-1131,  1164-1166. 

The  evidence  of  A  is  lacking  for  126,  587-589,  702,  707-708,  792, 
808-814,  816,  831,  872,  929  ff.,  980,  982,  1005,  1033,  1043-1045,  1130- 


108  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLATTTUS 

Unfortunately  the  Trinummus  affords  slight  opportu- 
nity for  a  comparison  of  the  manuscript-tradition.  In 
several  of  the  most  certain  cases  of  retractatio,  sheets 
are  missing  from  the  Palimpsest,  and  it  is  impossible 
to  calculate  their  contents.  In  most  of  the  others,  the 
reading  of  the  two  families  of  manuscripts  is  the  same. 
At  11.  361  ff.,  where  both  A  and  P  indicate  an  omission, 
P  has  transposed  one  more  line  than  A.  A  omits  1.  72b, 
though  it  gives  the  remainder  of  the  suspicious  passage, 
and  P  omits  1.  769,  which  is  almost  certainly  a  later 
addition.  But  on  the  whole,  where  we  can  compare  A 
and  P,  the  testimony  of  the  Trinummus  strongly  supports 
the  theory  that  the  two  families  of  manuscripts  had  a 
common  origin. 


1131,  1164-1166.  The  rest  of  the  passages  are  preserved  in  both 
A  and  P:  6-7,  18-21,  60,  64,  92,  93,  206-209,  223  ff.,  231-232,  248- 
249,  263,  321  (preserved  in  B,  but  omitted  in  the  other  Palatine 
manuscripts),  368  (in  different  order),  414-415,  420-424,  427b  (in 
different  order),  470,  471,  527-528,  562-568  (except  that  A  deest 
568 ff.),  660 ff.,  756-762,  764  (in  different  order),  852,  857-860, 
1053-1054. 

The  following  lines  show  minor  variations:   52,  61,  70,   186,  214, 
238,   256,    328,   339,   351,   537,   660,   842,    1064,    1069,    1078. 


CONCLUSION 

The  five  plays  which  have  been  discussed  in  detail 
show  a  marked  difference  both  in  the  amount  and  in  the 
kind  of  retractatio  that  they  present.  By  far  the  most 
extensive  changes,  as  well  as  the  greatest  number  of  cer- 
tain examples  of  retractatio,  occur  in  the  Poenulus.  In 
this  play  we  find  a  secondary  ending  of  about  forty  lines ; 
two  passages,  each  of  which  shows  three  parallel  ver- 
sions; and  numerous  others  which  present  two  parallels. 
The  Persa  seems  to  have  suffered  shortening,  and  to  have 
preserved  only  the  shortened  version  of  certain  scenes. 
The  Stichus  has  several  alternative  versions,  only  one  of 
which  is  of  any  length,  and  a  few  small  additions.  The 
changes  in  the  Pseudolus  and  the  Trinummus  are  for 
the  most  part  confined  to  single  lines.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  .theories  about  the  general  problem  of 
retractatio  should  be  based,  not  on  a  few  selected  cases, 
or  even  on  all  the  cases  in  a  single  play,  but  on  the  whole 
body  of  text. 

However,  even  the  study  of  five  plays  has  led  to  some 
general  conclusions*  It  appears  that,  on  the  whole,  the 
retractatores  made  no  very  important  contributions  to 
our  text.  Even  in  the  second  ending  of  the  Poenulus 
they  used  to  a  large  extent  material  that  Plautus  had 
supplied,  and  in  other  cases  their  debt  to  him  was  even 
greater.  Pers.  722-734  is  a  patchwork  of  Plautine 
phrases,  and  Pseud.  406-408  is  borrowed  directly  from 
'the  next  scene.  The  later  poets  often  seem  to  have  con- 
tented themselves  with  making  slight  changes  in  phras- 
ing, either  to  improve  upon  the  original  form  of  a  line 

109 


110  RETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

(Pers.  704;  Trin.  788b;  Stick.  158a)  or  to  give  a  more 
modern  turn  to  an  old  phrase  (Poen.  390b;  Pers. 
442  f.).  The  alternative  versions  sometimes  have  the 
effect  of  shortening  the  scene,  and  once,  at  least  (Stick. 
48-57),  there  is  a  change  in  order  to  dispense  with  mu- 
sical accompaniment.  Occasionally  a  transposition  indi- 
cates that  a  wordy  passage  was  to  be  omitted  (Poen. 
622b;  Stick.  160  ff. ;  Trin.  361  ff.).  Such  shortenings 
by  means  of  simple  omission  generally  occur  in  the  body 
of  the  scene;  alternative  versions  which  are  intended  to 
shorten  a  scene  most  often  occur  near  the  end  (Pers. 
666  ff.;  Poen.  805;  Stick.  668  ff. ;  Trin.  582). 

The  chief  object  of  this  investigation,  however,  has 
been  to  determine  as  far  as  possible  the  relation  of  the 
Ambrosian  and  Palatine  recensions  to  the  phenomenon 
of  retractatio.  New  light  has  been  thrown  upon  this 
question  by  a  study  of  the  five  plays  in  which  the  Ambro- 
sian Palimpsest  is  best  represented — for  any  solution 
must  rest  primarily  upon  the  evidence  of  these  plays. 
The  discussion  has  .taken  up  altogether  66  cases  of 
retractatio.1  In  17  of  these  66  cases,  the  evidence  of 
the  Palimpsest  is  absolutely  lacking:  Pers.  460  f. ;  Poen. 
98-100;  118-120;  121-128;  214-215;  217-219;  622b; 
805-808;  Stick.  710  f. ;  Trin.  582  >  672;  788ab;  796- 
797  ;  889-891 ;  901 ;  1093  ff. ;  1110  ff.  We  are  therefore 
reduced  to  49  passages  on  which  to  base  our  conclusions. 

1  This  summary  includes  only  certain  or  fairly  probable  cases  of 
retractatio.  Pers.  467-468;  Poen.  930-939;  Stick.  208b  are  excluded, 
since  the  difficulty  in  these  passages  is  probably  not  to  be  charged 
to  retractatio,  and  the  passages  listed  in  foot-notes  under  each  play 
are  omitted  as  well.  In  the  summary,  the  Double  Ending  of  the 
Poenulus  (11.  1315-1422)  counts  as  a  single  ease,  but  two  additional 
oases  are  listed  from  the  same  portion  of  the  play  (11.  1315  ff.; 
1331). 


CONCLUSION 


111 


Of  these  49,  we  find  15  preserved  (aside  from  slight 
verbal  differences)  in  exactly  the  same  form  in  A  and  P : 
Pers.  704 ;  Poen.  917-929  ;  1162  ff. ;  Pseud.  166  ;  210-224 ; 
385  f.;  406-408;  688  ff. ;  1137;  1214-1216;  Stick.  167- 
170 ;  174  ff. ;  Trin.  200 ;  305-312  ;  322.  In  6  other  cases 
it  is  probable  that  A,  if  preserved,  would  give  the  passage 
in  the  same  form  as  P.  These  are  cases  in  which  the 
Palimpsest  breaks  off  after  giving  part  of  a  suspicious 
passage,  or  else,  even  though  the  text  is  entirely  missing 
from  A,  calculation  makes  it  probable  that  A  had  the 
same  form  as  P :  Pers.  440  ff. ;  738  ff. ;  Poen.  504-575  ; 
1315-1422;  Pseud.  1079-1086;  Stick.  668  ff.  Also,  at 
Poen.  389  and  1333  ff.  (the  latter  passage  discussed 
under  1315  ff.),  though  A  has  at  first  omitted  one  or 
more  lines,  part  of  the  verse  or  the  passage  in  question 
is  added  between  the  lines  or  in  the  margin,  showing  that 
somewhere  in  the  A-family  the  passage  was  given  in  full 
form.  Altogether,  then,  we  find  23  cases  in  which  the 
text-tradition  of  the  A-family  and  the  P-family  is  virtu- 
ally the  same. 

Of  the  remaining  26  cases,  some  show  differences  in 
the  amount  of  text  preserved,  others  in  order  only,  and 
a  few  differ  both  in  amount  and  in  order.  There  are, 
in  all,  8  instances  in  which  A  shows  evidences  of  retrac- 
taiio  not  found  in  P:  Poen.  706  ff.  (the  insertion  of  730 
after  706,  707,  720,  indicating  a  further  omission)  ;  1331 
(an  alternative  for  1330)  ;  Stick.  441-445  (an  addition 
modeled  on  11.  641-648)  ;  Trin.  769  (a  variant  for  770)  ; 
and,  less  certain  cases:  Pseud.  67b  (an  addition  to  1.  64)  ; 
573a  (likewise  an  addition)  ;  Stick.  160  ff.  and  208  ff. 
(transpositions  to  indicate  omission).  On  the  other  hand, 
P  presents  5  cases  of  retractatio  of  which  there  is  no 


112  EETBACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

trace  in  A:  Pseud.  523b  2  and  Stick.  48-57,  both  undoubted 
examples  of  later  versions;  and  also  Poen.  1378-1381 
(a  proposed  shortening)  ; 2  Pseud.  696bc  (an  addition)  ; 
and  1205-1207  (a  shortening). 

We  also  find  a  number  of  instances  in  which  both 
families  of  manuscripts  give  a  parallel  version  or  a  short- 
ened scene-ending,  but  one  or  the  other  omits  some  of  the 
lines.  In  such  cases  it  must,  of  course,  be  assumed  that 
the  whole  passage  originally  stood  in  that  family,  but 
that  in  some  way  (perhaps  through  errors  due  to  Jiomoeo- 
teleuton  or  homoeokatarTcton,  or  through  other  forms  of 
carelessness  in  transcribing)  part  of  it  was  lost.  Thus 
in  Pers.  605-610,  P  omits  608  (a  genuine  line)  and  610 
(part  of  the  later  version)  ;  666  ff.,  P  omits  671b ;  722-734, 
P  omits  730;  Poen.  1042-1053,  P  gives  1053  only  once, 
whereas  A  gives  it  twice;  Stick.  483-485,  P  has  only  the 
spurious  version,  A  has  both.  Against  these  5  passages 
in  which  A  gives  the  fuller  form  can  be  ranged  2  in  which 
P  is  more  complete:  Stick.  157  ff.,  in  which  A  gives  only 
one  (probably  the  substitute)  version  for  the  second  line 
of  the  couplet,  whereas  P  has  both  (but  omits  the  first 
verse  of  the  couplet)  ;  and  Trin.  72  ff.,  in  which  A  omits 
72b. 

In  3  of  the  cases  just  mentioned  (Pers.  666  ff. ;  Poen. 
706  ff.;  1042-1053)  there  is  a  difference  in  the  order  of 
the  lines  as  well  as  in  their  number.  There  are  also  6 
passages  which  show  the  same  text  in  A  and  P,  arranged 
in  different  order :  Poen.  300-305 ;  the  prologue  of  the 
Pseudolus  (which  appears  in  a  different  position  in  the 
two  families)  ;  Trin.  361  ff.  (in  which  P  transposes  368 
as  well  as  369)  ;  and,  in  addition  to  these  fairly  certain  " 

2  The  contents  of  A  are  calculated. 


CONCLUSION 


113 


cases,  others  which  are  less  sure:  Poen.  1267-1268; 
Pseud.  151-156;  Stick.  75-83. 

On  the  whole,  the  difference  between  the  two  families 
of  manuscripts  in  the  amount  of  retractatio  preserved 
is  slight.  In  23  cases  out  of  49,  A  and  P  seem  to  show 
the  same  text-tradition.  In  6  additional  cases,  the  only 
difference  is  in  the  order  of  the  lines.  A  has  8  cases  of 
retractatio  which  P  does  not  give,  and  P  has  5  which  A 
does  not  give.  In  5  cases,  though  both  families  of  manu- 
scripts show  traces  of  retractatio,  A  gives  more  text; 
in  2,  P  has  the  fuller  form.  The  few  differences  that 
exist  indicate,  not  that  A  presents  the  "  ipsa  verba "  of 
Plautus,  and  P  the  "  Kevival  text,"  but  that  A,  as  the 
older  manuscript,  has  kept  more  of  the  "  Revival  "  altera- 
tions than  P.  We  are  therefore  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  source  of  A  and  P  was  the  same;  that  the  two 
families  had  originally  about  the  same  amount  of  re- 
tractatio, but  that,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  some  lines 
and  passages  have  dropped  out ;  the  Palatine  manuscripts, 
being  the  later,  have  naturally  lost  more  than  the  Am- 
brosian  Palimpsest. 

When  we  try  to  account  for  the  omission  of  a  passage 
in  one  family  of  manuscripts  and  its  transmission  in 
another,  for  the  confused  order  of  half  a  dozen  lines,  or 
the  mutilation  of  a  substitute  passage,  we  find  the  most 
satisfactory  explanation  in  Oskar  Seyffert's  theory  that 
at  one  time  in  the  history  of  the  common  archetype  the 
passages  due  to  the  Plautine  Revival  were  adscribed  in 
the  margin.  Not  only  is  the  complete  loss  of  certain 
passages  easier  to  understand  on  this  hypothesis;  but  the 
disappearance  of  single  lines  like  Pers.  610,  Trin.  72b, 
is  intelligible,  if  we  assume  that  the  whole  passage  once 
stood  in  the  margin  and  was  introduced  from  there  into 

8 


114  EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 

the  text.  It  sometimes  happens,  too,  that  the  spurious 
passage  is  preserved  in  full,  but  that,  in  being  taken  into 
the  text,  it  has  crowded  out  a  genuine  line  (Stick.  157 
in  P,  and  probably  Pers.  668  in  A). 

Confusion  in  the  order  of  lines  may  have  arisen  in  the 
same  way.  Twice  a  substitute  passage  has  been  inserted 
in  the  wrong  place  in  both  A  and  P :  Pers.  442  f . ;  Pseud. 
385  f. ;  and  twice  (in  portions  of  the  text  for  which  A 
is  missing)  P  has  put  an  alternative  version  in  the  wrong 
position:  Trin.  889-891;  901.  The  differences  of  order 
in  A  and  P  (Poen.  300-305;  Pseud.  151-156;  Stick.  75- 
83)  also  point  to  variants  which  were  written  in  the 
margin  and  were  taken  into  the  text  at  different  points. 

This  investigation  of  retractatio  in  five  plays  of  Plau- 
tus  therefore  supports  the  view  that  the  Ambrosian 
Palimpsest  and  the  Palatine  manuscripts  were  descended 
from  a  common  archetype;  that  substitute  versions  were 
written  in  the  margin  of  this  archetype;  and  that  the 
introduction  of  these  marginal  adscripts  into  the  text  was 
responsible  for  the  omission  of  whole  passages  and  of 
single  lines,  for  differences  in  order,  and  for  confusion 
in  the  genuine  text  of  Plautus. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


EDITIONS   OF   PLAUTUS 

GOETZ,  G.,  F.  SCHOELL,  and  G.  LOEWE — Ed.  Mai.,  Leipzig,  1871-1894. 
GOETZ,  G.,  and  F.  SCHOELL — Ed.  Min.,  Leipzig,  1892-1896   (revised 

1904-1909). 

LEO,  F. — Berlin,  1885    (incomplete). 
LEO,   F.— Berlin,  1895-1896. 
LINDSAY,  W.  M.— Oxford,  1904-1905. 
RITSCHL,  F. — Begun  in  1848    (incomplete). 
USSING — Copenhagen,  1875-1892. 

GENERAL  LITERATURE 

BAIER,  B. — De  Plauti  Fabularum  Recensionibus  Ambrosiana  et  Pala- 

tina  Commentatio   Critica,   Breslau,   1885. 

BEBGK,  TH. — Reviews  of  Hitachi's  editions,  in  Opusc.  i.,  pp.  3-53. 
BBACHMANN,  W. — De  Bacchidum  Plautinae  Retractations  Scaenica, 

in  Leipz.  Stud.  3   (1880),  pp.  59-187. 
DZIATZKO,    K. — De   Prologis    Plautinis    et    Terentianis    Quaestiones 

Selectae,  Bonn,  1863. 

Uber  die  plautinischen  Prologe,  Luzern,  1866-1867. 

GOETZ,  G. — Dittographien  im  Plautustexte,  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips. 

6  (1876),  pp.  235-326. 

GBAUEBT,  W.  H. — Historische  und  philologische  Analekten,  Miinster, 

1833. 
KELLEBMAN,    H. — De   Plauto   Sui  Imitatore,   in   Comm.   phil.   Jen. 

7  (1903),  pp.   129-197. 

LADEWIG,  Ts.—Zum  Epidicus  des  Plautus,  in  Zeitschrift  filr  Alter- 

tumswissenschaft,  1841,  coll.  1079-1099. 

Vber  den  Kanon  des  Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neustrelitz,  1842. 

Einleitungen  und  Anmerkungen  zu  plautinischen  Lustspielen,  in 

Rhein.    Mus.    3    (1845),    pp.    179-205;    520-540. 

*A  selected  list  of  the  books  and  articles  which  have  been  most 
helpful  in  the  preparation  of  this  dissertation.  Authorities  for 
minor  points  are  given  in  the  foot-notes. 

115 


116  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

LADEWIG,  TH.— Plautinische  Studien,  in  Philol.  17   (1861),  pp.  248- 

269;  452-480. 

LANGEN,  P. — Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,  1886. 
LEO,    F. — Plautinische    Forschungen,    Berlin,    1895. 
LINDSAY,    W.    M. — The    Two    Recensions    of    Plautus,    A    and    P-*-, 

in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  pp.  23-37. 

The   Ancient  Editions   of  Plautus,  Oxford,    1904. 

OSANN,   F. — Analecta   Critica,   Berlin,    1816. 

REINHAEDT,   L. — De  Retractatis  Fabulis  Plautinis,   in  Studemund's 

Studien  auf  dem  Gebiete  des  archaischen  Lateins  I.,  Berlin, 

1873,  pp.   79-111. 

RITSCHL,    F. — Parerga   Plautina   et    Terentiana,    Leipzig,    1845. 
Parallelstellen  im  Plautus  als  Ursache  von  Glossemen,  in  Opusc. 

II.,   pp.   274-291. 

SEYFFERT,  O. — Studia  Plautina,  Berlin,  1874. 
Zur    Uberlieferungsgeschichte    der   Komddien    des    Plautus,    in 

Berl.  Phil  Woch.  16   (1896),  coll.  252-255;  283-288. 
SICKER,  E. — Novae   Quaestiones  Plautinae,  in  PhiloL   Suppl-Bd.   11 

(1908),   pp.    179-252. 
SONNENSCHEIN,   E. — The   Scientific   Emendation  of  Classical   Texts, 

in  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Ass.  24    (1893),  pp.  5-16. 
SPENGEL,   A. — T.   Maccius  Plautus,   Gottingen,    1865. 
STUDEMUND,  W. — Zur  Kritik   des  Plautus,   in  Festgruss  der  philo- 

logischen  Gesellschaft  zu  Wurzburg,  Wurzburg,  1868,  pp.  38-76. 
T.    Macci    Plauti    Fabularum    Reliquiae    Ambrosianae,    Berlin, 

1889. 
TEUFFEL,  W. — Studien  zu  den  romischen  Komikern,  in  Studien  und 

Charakteristiken*  Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  315-352. 

PERSA 

VAN  IJSENDIJK,  A. — De  T.  Macci  Plauti  Persa,  Utrecht,  1884. 
MEYEB,  M. — De  Plauti  Persa,  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.   8    (1907),  pp. 

145-191. 
v.    WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORF,   U. — De   Tribus   Carminibus   Latinis, 

in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.  13-26. 

POENULUS 

BBACHMANN,  W. — De  Bacchidum  Plautinae  Retractatione  Scaenica, 
in  Leipz.  Stud.  3    (1880),  pp.  73-79. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


117 


FBANCKEN,  C.  M. — De  Poenuli  Plautinae  Compositione,  in  Mnem.  4 

(1876),  pp.   146-175. 
GOETZ,    G. — De    Compositione    Poenuli    Plautinae    Commentariolum, 

Jena,    1883. 

HASPEB,  TH. — De  Poenuli  Plautinae  Duplici  Exitu,  Leipzig,   1868. 
KABSTEN,  H.  T. — De  Compositione  Poenuli,  in  Mnem.  29    (1901), 

pp.    363-387. 

LANQBEHB,  G. — De  Plauti  Poenulo,  FriedLand,  1883. 
LEGBAND,     Pn.-E. — Pour    I'histoire    de    la    Comedie    Nouvelle,    4. 

L' original    du    Poenulus    de    Plant e,    in    Revue    des    Etudes 

Qrecques    16    (1903),   pp.    358-374. 
REINHABDT,   L. — De  RePractatis  Falulis   Plautinis  in  Studemund's 

Studien  auf  dem  Geliete  des  archaischen  Lateins  I.,  Berlin, 

1873,  pp.   109-111. 
SCHUETH,  K. — De  Poenulo  Plautina  Quaestiones  Criticae,  Bonn,  1883. 

PSEUDOLUS 

BIEBMA,  J.  W. — Quaestiones  De  Plautina  Pseudolo,  Groningen,  1897. 
KABSTEN,  H.   T. — De  Plauti  Pseudolo,  in   Mnem.   31    (1903),   pp. 

130-156. 
KIESSUNG,  A. — Plautinische  Miscellenen,  in  Symbola  Philologorum 

Bonnensium,  pp.  835-839,  Leipzig,   1863-1867. 
Zur   Kritik    und    Erklarung    des    plautinischen   Pseudolus,    in 

Rhein.    Mus.    23     (1868),    pp.    411-426. 
LEO,    F. — filer  den  Pseudolus   des   Plautus,   in  Nachr.   Gott.    Ges. 

1903,  pp.  347-354. 
LOBENZ,  A.  O.  F. — Zum  Pseudolus  des  Plautus,  in  Philol.  35  (1876), 

pp.   153-180. 

Ed.,  Berlin,  1876. 

NOBDEN,  E. — Sprachliche  Beolaohtungen  zu  Plautus,  in  Rhein.  Mus. 

49    (1894),   pp.    197-203. 

SAUPPE,  H. — Quaestiones  Plautinae,  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1858-1859. 
SCHMIDT,   F. — Bemerkungen  zum  Pseudolus  des  Plautus,   in   Misc. 

phil.   Gott.   1876,   pp.   20-31. 
SCHMITT,   A. — De  Pseudoli  Plautinae   exemplo   Attico,    Strassburg, 

1909. 
USENEB,   H.— Pseudoli  Plautinae  Scaena  Secunda,  in  Index  Schol. 

Gryphiswald.,  1866. 

8TICHUS 

LEO,  F. — filer  den  Stichus  des  Plautus,  in  Wachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902, 
pp.  375-391. 


118  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


TRINUMMUS 

BBIX,  J.— Ed.,  Leipzig,   1879. 

— i — Edition  revised  by  M.  Niemeyer,  Leipzig,  1907. 

RIBBECK,  O. — Zu  Plautus'  Trinummus,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  27    (1872), 

pp.   177-180. 
RITSCHL,   F. — De   Interpolatione   Trinummi  Plautinae,   in   Parerga, 

pp.   509-579. 
TEUFFEL,  W. — Zu  Plautiis'  Trmummus,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  30   (1875), 

pp.  472-475;    632-633. 
VAHLEN,  J. — Vcvria,  in  Hermes   15    (1880),  pp.  257-259. 


VITA 

I,  Cornelia  Catlin  Coulter,  was  born  in  Ferguson, 
Missouri,  December  27,  1885.  My  father  was  Horace 
P.  Coulter,  my  mother  Laura  Chamberlain  Coulter.  I 
received  my  early  education  in  the  public  schools  of 
Ferguson,  Missouri,  and  was  prepared  for  college  by  the 
St.  Louis  Central  High  School.  From  1903  to  1907  I 
was  a  student  in  Washington  University,  from  which  in-' 
stitution  I  was  graduated  with  the  degree  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  in  1907.  Since  then  I  have  spent  four  years  in 
graduate  work,  the  years  1907-1908,  1909-1911  at  Bryn 
Mawr  College,  and  the  year  1908-1909  at  the  University 
of  Munich. 

In  1907-1908  I  held  a  scholarship  in  Latin  in  Bryn 
Mawr  College,  and  at  the  end  of  that  year  I  was  awarded 
the  President's  European  Fellowship,  which  I  used  in 
travel  and  in  study  at  the  University  of  Munich.  In 
1909-1910  I  held  the  Resident  Fellowship  in  Latin,  and 
in  1910-1911  the  Resident  Fellowship  in  Greek,  in  Bryn 
Mawr  College. 

My  graduate  work  at  Bryn  Mawr  College  has  been 
done  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Wheeler  and  Dr.  Frank 
in  the  Department  of  Latin,  and  Dr.  Sanders  and  Dr. 
Wright  in  the  Department  of  Greek.  At  Munich  I 
attended  the  classical  seminar  of  Professor  C'rusius,  Pro- 
fessor Vollmer,  and  Professor  Rehm,  and  heard  lectures 
by  Professor  Pohlmann,  Professor  Simonsfeld,  and  Dr. 
Otto.  To  Professor  Vollmer,  and  to  Professor  Krum- 
bacher,  whom  I  was  so  fortunate  as  to  know  a  few 
months  before  his  death,  I  owe  especial  thanks  for  their 
kindly  interest  in  my  work. 

119 


120  VITA 

The  graduate  work  that  I  have  done  has  been  divided 
almost  equally  between  Latin,  which  is  my  major  subject, 
and  my  minor,  Greek..  My  dissertation,  which  was  pre- 
sented to  the  faculty  of  Bryn  Mawr  College  in  May, 
1911,  has  been  written  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  A.  L. 
Wheeler.  I  can  have  no  better  opportunity  than  this  to 
express  to  him  my  gratitude,  not  only  for  his  advice 
during  the  writing  of  this  dissertation,  but  for  his  kind- 
ness and  consideration  throughout  my  entire  graduate 
course. 


236763 


